Change We Can Believe In?

Final Post

2009-01-27T06:31:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

This will be the last post to this blog. A few quick words before shut down, however…

This project began in September 2008. The idea was to try and provide a space in which to discuss and debate the meaning of Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy from the perspective of the global left. It was originally intended to run until election day on November 4. Original texts were commissioned from political activists, intellectuals, academics, journalists and others. News and opinion by, about, or likely to be of interest to the left was aggregated from elsewhere on the web.

As a number of people pointed out at the time, however, the period of transition which began with Obama’s election and came to a close with his inauguration on January 20, provided an important opportunity for the left to build pressure on the then president-elect to start delivering on his promise of ‘change’. The transition was also, it was thought, likely to serve as an indicator of the directions his administration might take. The blog, then, tried to reinvent itself as a location in which these processes were tracked and debated.

Of course, the policy decisions the administration is likely to take remain open for contestation now that Obama has entered office. It is the domestic constellation of forces – to Obama’s left and right; in Congress and on the streets – as well as the economic, military, social and political transformations taking place on a global level, which will largely determine what the administration can or cannot achieve. Whether or not, for instance, Obama is able to deliver a ‘New New Deal’ will depend in large part on the force with which it is demanded; its form and content determined by the competing interests that seek to shape policy and influence the direction of social development.

Throughout Obama’s election campaign, the period of transition, and the first few days of his Presidency, numerous comparisons have been drawn with those who have occupied the office before him. JFK’s often ‘professorial’ style, his ability to enthuse the country’s youth, and his promise of generational change; and Obama’s own series of nods towards the governing style of Abraham Lincoln have all been widely discussed. And while the parallels between both the current economic crisis and that of the Great Depression, as well as between Obama and FDR, have been overstated, the left can nevertheless draw a few lessons from the 1930s. In response to the demands placed on him by the left, Roosevelt has often been paraphrased as saying, ‘I am convinced. Now go out and make me do it.’

The real question which this blog has sought to address, then, and which the global left needs to continue asking itself, is not really how progressive, liberal or leftwing is Barack Obama? It is rather: How can those of us on the left, in the US and beyond, develop a means of building pressure on the incoming President to push policy radically to the left – whatever his own ‘natural’ inclinations may be? This is, of course, a question to which this blog – and its contributors – have certainly not found any definitive answer; and it is one, I suspect, which will continue to be asked elsewhere. I hope, however, that these pages have made some small contribution to this important debate.

On which note, I would like to thank all of those who - directly and indirectly - contributed to this blog, and whom I imagine will continue to address this and other questions in the future.

First and foremost, my thanks go out to all those authors who contributed texts either to this blog or the magazine: Doug Henwood, Gary Younge, Jo-ann Mort, Betsy Reed and Ta-Nehisi Coates, Graeme Chesters, Rayyan Mirza, Tadzio Mueller, Stefano Harney, Keir Milburn, Sue Katz, Raffaele Sciortin, Imran Ayata, Ewa Jasiewicz, Geoffrey Whitehall, Immanuel Wallerstein (also, here), Valery Alzaga, Patrick Bond, Rob Augman, Bill Fletcher Jr. (also, here), and Peter Tatchell.

Secondly, I would like to express thanks to all those columnists, bloggers and commentators on whose work I drew and to whom I often linked. I hope readers of this blog will continue to follow them. They include: Michael Tomasky at Guardian America, Gary Younge at the Guardian, Naomi Klein, Scott Horton at Harper’s magazine, John Nichols and Katrina Vanden Heuvel at the Nation, and Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch.com.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Tadzio Mueller, Manuela Bojadžijev, Imran Ayata and Dont Rhine for numerous conversations (and endless forwarded emails!) which have somehow influenced this blog.

And, naturally, thanks to everyone who has been reading!

'The Audacity of Dope'

2009-01-25T09:52:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

There have been some fairly unusual attempts to cash in on Obama's current popularity, beyond the usual badges, fridge magnets and T-shirts that often accompany political campaigns.

IKEA set up a replica Oval Office (photo) in a Washington DC's Union Station, using slogans including 'Fiscally Responsible Home Furnishings', 'The Time for Domestic Reform has Come', and 'Change Begins At Home'. They even launched a website to allow you to recommend IKEA furnishings to the White House.

Pepsi have launched a Refresh Everything campaign. And Ben and Jerry's have released a new flavour of ice cream, Yes PeCan. The most recent addition to the unofficial Obama merchandising drive: Obama heroin. Seriously!

Inaugural Protest Events

2009-01-25T05:22:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

As I am sure you are aware, enormous - probably record - numbers attended Obama's inauguration last week. To get some idea of the size of the crowds, take a look at this satellite image. Amongst them were a number of protest groups (although some described their planned activities as 'presence' rather than 'protest') seeking to build pressure on the Obama administration from the left.

Democracy Now! have a short report on CODE PINK's activities at the inauguration, with an interview with one of the organisation's founders Medea Benjamin. (See also this blog entry on the Washington Times website).

The Hope from People bloc planned for the inauguration, and previously mentioned on this blog, would appear to have drawn rather low numbers. This was despite being endorsed by several prominent leftists such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and groups like Unconventional Denver who helped coordinate protests around the Democratic National Convention in August, Wooden Shoe Books Collective who run an anarchist Infoshop in Philadelphia, the San Francisco-based Friendly Fire Collective, and - again - CODE PINK. Participants gathered to distribute a flyer advocating anarchist alternatives to the notion that change can take place through the presidency. However, according to a frustrated comment posted to the bloc's blog, the event attracted 'no more than 15 to 20 people.' At present, no other report from the events in DC has been posted to the bloc's website.

In San Francisco, over the weekend prior to the inauguration, 5,000 people threw shoes at a cardboard cut-out George Bush in a form of protest which became rather widespread in the last days of his presidency. The protests were organised by Courage to Resist and Direct Action to Stop the War. According to David Solnit, an activist and author of Globalize Liberation and Army of None, many throwers also signed the following Peace Pledge,

'President Obama,

'We take it seriously when on election night you said, "This victory alone is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change." We publicly commit that that "we the people" will organize ourselves and our communities to take action to make those changes. We agree with your statement, "I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."

'We urge you to join us in working for these five essential changes to end the war and to begin to "end the mindset that got us into war:"

'1) ALL TROOPS HOME FROM IRAQ NOW!
Including "non-combat" troops, private contractors (i.e. Blackwater), and close all US military bases in Iraq.

'2) HELP REBUILD IRAQ
Give reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stop the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future.

'3) NO ESCALATIONS, NO NEW WARS
* No escalation of war in Afghanistan; troops should be withdrawn.
* Stop attacks inside Pakistan. Don't attack Iran.
* Cut military aid to governments that violate human rights or international law, such as Israel in what Amnesty International calls an "unlawful attack on Gaza."
* Close Guantanamo and all secret prisons

'4) FROM GLOBAL MILITARY INTERVENTION TO REAL SECURITY AT HOME
* Close all 800 foreign US military bases.
* Reduce military budget and troops; Stop wasting hundreds of billions needed for health care, housing, education, and green energy/jobs.

'5) SUPPORT VETERANS
* Amnesty for all GI resisters who refuse illegal war.
* Full benefits, adequate health care (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.

'a better world is possible.

'Sincerely,

'Concerned People in the United States'

In an article by Solnit for New York's Indypendent newspaper shortly before the inauguration he wrote,

'Barack Obama’s election seems to have dispelled some of the despair that grew up in the repressive war-making aftermath of September 11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq and Bush’s re-election. This is good for organizing - people step up out of hope, not despair. Many of us who have a deep critique of Democrats, political parties and politicians, however, are left conflicted or confused. Whether we will see the opening of a space for real positive changes or an era in which movements and resistance get co-opted depends on whether and how we organize - and if we learn key lessons from past global justice (and other) organizing and understand how Obama’s campaign (and the independent efforts for Obama) communicated, organized and inspired.'

He then goes on to suggest five lessons which could be learned by radical movements in the Obama-era.

The 'Economist' on Obama and the Question of Betrayal

2009-01-25T04:42:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The 'Lexington' column in this week's Economist focusses on Obama's betrayal of the left - either real or perceived. It lists some of the criticism which have so far been made of Obama by progressives, liberals and those further to the left - many of which have also been flagged up on this blog.

Unsurprisingly, when the paper ask the question (which one cannot help feeling is being asked somewhat rhetorically) 'Should Mr Obama worry about all this?', there answer is: 'Not much.' The column continues,

'For one thing, he is still hugely popular. A whopping 79% of Americans approve of him. Two days before the inauguration, when a preacher told a crowd that Mr Obama was not the Messiah, he was booed (in jest, one hopes). For another, Mr Obama is not breaking as many promises as his former fans imagine. Mostly, he is breaking only promises they think he made. Had they read the small print, they would have seen that he left himself some wiggle room. During his campaign Mr Obama was, as he put it himself, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project[ed] their own views”. He gave a lot of people the strong impression that their most urgent goals were also his. As president, he can no longer maintain this illusion.

'He must make trade-offs. He wants to cool the planet, but without stifling growth. He wants to close Guantánamo, but without freeing anyone who will then shoot up a shopping mall. He cannot govern from the centre without upsetting his left flank from time to time; nor should he try. He also wants to be re-elected and, if the past is any guide, he will pursue this goal with ruthless pragmatism. During the campaign, for example, he said he favoured civil unions but refused to endorse gay marriage. Cynical observers suspected a fudge—that he said this only to dull the sting of Republican attack ads. It seems the cynics were right: last week a gay paper dug up a long-lost questionnaire from 1996 in which he strongly endorsed gay marriage. In this case, Mr Obama really is more liberal than the image he projected. In others, the opposite may be true. The world will know soon enough.'

The LGBT paper referred to is the Windy City Times, which as the name implies is based in Obama's former hometown of Chicago. Politico.com have uploaded the relevant pages of the newspaper's report here.

The Windy City Times website also provides a link to the following White House policy statement on LGBT rights, published as Obama was sworn in as President on January 20.

Gitmo to Close Within a Year; CIA Secret Prisons to be Shut; Torture Banned

2009-01-23T06:39:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

On his second day in office, Obama - as was widely expected - announced the closure of Guantánamo Bay detention centre within a year. He also signed executive orders closing the CIA's network of secret prisons and banning torture.

The New York Times yesterday wrote,

'Mr. Obama’s orders struck a powerful new tone and represented an important first step toward rewriting American rules for dealing with terrorism suspects. But only his decision to halt for now the military trials under way at Guantánamo Bay seemed likely to have immediate practical significance, with other critical policy choices to be resolved by task forces set up within the administration.

'Among the questions that the White House did not resolve on Thursday were these: What should be done with terrorists who cannot be tried in American courts, either because evidence against them was obtained by torture or because intelligence is too sensitive to use in court? Should some interrogation methods remain secret to keep Al Qaeda from training to resist them? How can the United States make sure prisoners transferred to other countries will not be tortured?

'Members of Mr. Obama’s national security team have expressed a wide variety of views on interrogation and detention policy, and there is likely to be robust internal debate before the questions are resolved.'

In a statement published on the organisation's website, Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Council for Civil Liberties, who have been running the Close Gitmo campaign, said,

'These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.

'There are, however, ambiguities in the orders regarding treatment of certain detainees that could either be the result of the swiftness with which these orders were issued or ambivalence within the Obama administration. We are hopeful that as the process unfolds and gets clarified, there will be no doubt that detainees must either be charged, prosecuted and convicted or they need to be released. That’s the American way; our legal system, while not always perfect, is the best in the world. Adherence to American legal principles requires unconditional action; there is no room for a middle-ground. It would be an enormous mistake for the Obama administration to allow for indefinite detention in any case, or to endeavor to create any system other than our centuries-old justice system for prosecuting detainees. If President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates hold on to any part of the Bush administration’s legal farce, they will soon end up in the very same legal morass that the prior president found himself in over the last eight years.'

David Iglesias has been appointed the Judge Advocate General who will serve as prosecutor in the Guantánamo cases. Harper's magazine blogger on legal affairs, Scott Horton, describes Iglesias as a 'good man' and the appointment as marking,

'a distinct upgrade to the quality and caliber of the prosecution effort, which recently has been beset with controversy concerning its independence. Six Gitmo prosecutors have resigned or requested reassignment, many noting that political officials of the Bush Administration improperly interfered with their management of the cases or suggested the existence of vital evidence which was being withheld from the defense.'

Much of the left have, of course, been pleased with the announcement - even if several important issues regarding the detention and treatment of terror suspects still remain unresolved. Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, for example, wrote in the Guardian,

'It is, of course, right that the trials should be immediately suspended and the prison itself be closed as soon as possible. However, what follows will be just as important. If, as some have argued, secret trials on the basis of waterboarded confessions were to be repackaged and transported to the mainland, the Bush legacy of legal exceptionalism would become a permanent part of US constitutional furniture.'

Perhaps more immediately controversial, however, is likely to be the Obama administration's probable continuation of Bush-era policies on the running of wire-taps without warrants.

More Thoughts on the Speech

2009-01-23T06:19:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Florida International University law professor, Stanley Fish, in a post to the New York Times' website blog, 'Think Again', reflects on Obama's speech. He wrote, yesterday,

'It is as if the speech, rather than being a sustained performance with a cumulative power, was a framework on which a succession of verbal ornaments were hung, and we were being invited not to move forward but to stop and ponder significances only hinted at.

'And if you look at the text – spread out like a patient etherized on a table – that’s exactly what it’s like. There are few transitions and those there are – “for,” “nor,” “as for,” “so,” “and so” – seem just stuck in, providing a pause, not a marker of logical progression. Obama doesn’t deposit us at a location he has in mind from the beginning; he carries us from meditative bead to meditative bead, and invites us to contemplate...

'There is a technical term for this kind of writing – parataxis, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “the placing of propositions or clauses one after the other without indicating . . . the relation of co-ordination or subordination between them.”

'The opposite of parataxis is hypotaxis, the marking of relations between propositions and clause by connectives that point backward or forward. One kind of prose is additive – here’s this and now here’s that; the other asks the reader or hearer to hold in suspension the components of an argument that will not fully emerge until the final word. It is the difference between walking through a museum and stopping as long as you like at each picture, and being hurried along by a guide who wants you to see what you’re looking at as a stage in a developmental arc she is eager to trace for you.

'Of course, no prose is all one or the other, but the prose of Obama’s inauguration is surely more paratactic than hypotactic... The power is in discrete moments rather than in a thesis proved by the marshaling of evidence...

'One day after the occasion, USA Today offered as an analysis of the speech a list of the words most frequently used, words like America, common, generation, nation, people, today, world. This is exactly the right kind of analysis to perform, for it identifies the location of the speech’s energy in the repetition of key words and the associations forged among them by virtue of that repetition.

'In the years to come what USA Today has begun will be expanded and elaborated in a thousand classrooms. Canonization has already arrived.'

I believe that the following photo, posted to Flickr, is in fact of the USA Today story mentioned by Fish. It resembles, of course the tag cloud image produced by ReadWriteWeb.com mentioned here a few days ago.

The Obameter

2009-01-23T06:09:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

PolitiFact.com, a website connected to Florida's St Petersberg Times newspaper, has put together a list of 500 promises made by Obama prior to becoming President. They will be tracking whether or not he makes progress towards achieving that which he promised.

Coolio Cries

2009-01-23T05:33:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

A recording of Obama's inauguration was broadcast into the Celebrity Big Brother house where, for the Channel 4 programme, a number of (semi-)well known personalities have been living over the past few weeks. By following this link, you can watch some of the housemates discussing the inauguration. They include Coolio (best known for his 1995 hit Gangsta's Paradise) who breaks down in tears, the fifth born child in the Jackson family - La Toya, Verne Troyer (who played Mini-Me in one of the Austin Powers films), and Tommy Sheridan the socialist Scottish politician.

'It seems like Obama is saying: I will only be as good a president as the people who will organize to move me'

2009-01-22T08:15:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

A friend of mine, Dont Rhine from the sound art collective Ultra Red and who is based in LA, yesterday sent me an email with his thoughts on the inauguration. I found them insightful and he agreed to letting me post them here:

'First, best parts of the inauguration: Aretha's hat and Lowery's benediction. Worse part: Warren's prayer and its insufferable surfer dude platitudes and that wretched poem.

'About Obama's speech. One could mistake his call to responsibility, self-determination, and independence from Government as more of the same Reagan libertarianism; but for the fact that he always frames this with a denunciation of the failures of the state, the failures of the market, the failures of greed, and the failures of poor stewardship. I've begun to notice an implicit but, to my ears, very clear rhetorical style Obama uses in his speeches. It seems like Obama is saying: I will only be as good a president as the people who will organize to move me.

'Recently, Robert from Ultra-red reminded me that Abraham Lincoln waited a very long time to sign the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery in the U.S. Lincoln's delays made the abolitionists furious. At one point, they met with him and asked why he hadn't done ratified the Amendment. He said the time wasn't right. The abolitionists took this as a signal to increase their efforts, to raise the pitch on the masses demanding abolition. Hearing Obama list all the crises that we face (about which no one doing social justice work needs to be reminded), the kind of change actually needed to address those crises are so monumental that they can only happen with mass support. The demand for change on the scale of the New Deal requires such pressure from below that any opposition would lose legitimacy. I hear in Obama's speech an attempt to lay out 1) the depth of the problem such that it really does put fear in our hearts, 2) that people began to demand something be done, 3) that people begin to imagine and demand huge changes and not the usual standard of change offered by the democrats.

'As for Obama surrounding himself with hawks, conservatives and imperialists there are two ways to read this. First, we can say that Obama is weak and will succumb to Washington consensus politics. Nothing will change because of all these conservatives close to him. This has become the standard charge on the left - one I have made myself, particularly in relation to Clinton. The second is riskier, but also more political. We can say that Obama knows that the best place to keep your enemy is close by your side. Very very close. This was a strategy taken by Lincoln as well who surrounded himself with people ideologically opposite from himself. If Obama can persuade and win the support of the hawks and the pro-imperialist democrats of his own party (who will either follow him or undermine him) then the strength of the opposition will be diminished. I know this is a far-fetched reading. In the same way that it's an very risky strategy. But perhaps it's less useful to think of this being the truth (or not) than being an opening.

'Anyway, Bush and Co. are gone. The euphoria over this fact has intoxicated the country.'

The Obama and Bartlet Administrations

2009-01-22T04:48:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Regular readers of this blog will know that the similarities between the Obama candidacy and that of fictional presidential candidate, Matt Santos from TV's the West Wing, has been a recurring theme. See for example these two posts here and here. For fans of the show, in which Martin Sheen plays the sitting Democratic President, Josiah Bartlet, the Guardian have put together an article detailing which real-life White House staffers now occupy the various positions held by the programme's principle characters.

While we are at it, someone has put together a YouTube video, in the style of the West Wing's opening credits, introducing Obama's senior staff.

Here is Martin Sheen talking about Obama.

And here is Elie Attie, a former speech writer for Al Gore who also worked on the West Wing, talking about Obama and Santos.

President Obama's Inauguration Speech

2009-01-21T05:10:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

As of yesterday, at exactly 12:00 Eastern Time, Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. The full text of his inaugural speech can be read here, or viewed in the video player below. (Tradition pretty much obliges thanking the out-going president for his 'service to the country', but note the brevity with which Obama does so.)

Reactions to the speech are already in abundance. See, for example, the remarks by Michael Tomasky (editor of Guardian America), Arianna Huffington (founder of the Huffington Post), Ted Sorensen (Kennedy's speechwriter), Peter Hyman (one of Blair's old speechwriters), and John Nichols (the Nation's Washington correspondent).

The New York Times have assembled a team of speechwriters who have written for presidents Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Reagan and Bush Sr. to assess the inaugural address. Numerous commentators, such as the Washington Post op-ed columnist, George F. Will, Ken Silverstein the Washington editor of Harper's, Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief, David Corn, and the Sierra Club's Carl Pope have all chipped in. As has Hendrik Hertzberg over at the New Yorker. The Daily Kos website has put together an 'abbreviated pundit round-up'. The Guardian's Oliver Burkeman l ive-blogged the whole thing. And the web technology blog, ReadWriteWeb.com, ran Obama's speech through a tag cloud generator. They then did the same with Clinton and Bush's second inaugural addresses, Reagan's first, and both of Lincoln's. It is quite an interesting way of comparing key themes and phrases. Take a look, here.

Every other aspect of the day is, of course, also being examined. From Michelle Obama's outfit, designed by Cuban-born fashion designer Isabel Toledo, to Aretha Franklin's rendition of My Country 'Tis of Thee (and predictably, her most spectacular of hats), and Elizabeth Alexander's poem, Praise Song for the Day (transcript here).

Tom Englehardt, in the preamble to his latest article at TomDispatch.com website, wrote,

'Inauguration Day!

'Gazillions of Americans descended on Washington. The rest of us were watching on TV or checking out streaming video on our computers. No one was paying attention to anything else. Every pundit in sight was nattering away all day long, as they will tomorrow and, undoubtedly, the next day about whatever comes to mind until we get bored.'

Hyperbole aside, the speech and Obama's taking of office has - understandably - generated an enormous amount of discussion and debate. I hope the links provided above enable you to find a way in. As planned, I will be winding down this blog over the next couple of days.

Julie Burchill Misoverestimates Bush

2009-01-21T02:52:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

Whilst now former-Vice President Dick Cheney was doing his back in moving out of Washington, I spent Monday writing a response to Julie Buchill's thoroughly absurd article in the British tabloid newspaper, the Sun. In the article, which I mentioned on Sunday, she tries to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who criticise W.

In replying, I realised there was every risk I was taking her argument more seriously than she took it herself. The reason I decided to write the piece, though, was because I felt there was, in fact, an element of truth to what she was saying. Bush-whacking has tended to involve some real analytic reductionism, as well as an obscuring of both the record of previous US administrations and the role played by other governments and non-state actors in, for instance, the 'war on terror' and its facilitation. But, in true Burchill style, she ends up taking things far too far in the opposite direction, portraying him as a peace-nik defender of gay rights who dealt with the Katrina disaster splendidly.

My reply was published on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' site earlier today. Here is the link again, in case you missed it above.

Gary Younge on Ikea, Engels and Obama

2009-01-20T06:32:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Gary Younge had an article in yesterday’s Guardian. He began by describing some surreal sounding scenes in Washington DC – where, for example, Ikea have apparently built an Oval Office in the city’s train station, advertising ‘fiscally responsible furniture’ under the slogan ‘Change begins at home’. He went on to argue,

'For those on the left who have sneered at this joy [in Obama’s election, not cheap shelving], tomorrow is their last chance to join the rest of the people whose liberation they claim to champion. Anxious to get their disappointment in early and avoid the rush, they have been keen to point out the various ways in which Obama will fail and betray. Their predictions may well prove correct. The best is not the same as adequate. He has been elected to represent the interests of the most powerful country in the world. Those will not be the same interests as those of the powerless.

'And yet, in the words of Friedrich Engels: "What childish innocence it is to present one's own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument." Obama was the most progressive, viable candidate possible in these circumstances. A black American, propelled to office by a mass popular campaign pledging income redistribution and an end to torture and the war in Iraq, has defeated the Republicans and is about to replace the most reactionary president in at least a generation.

'The global outpouring of support for Obama suggests a constituency for a world free of racism and war, and desperate to shift the direction of global events that is in dire need of leadership and an agenda. Dancing in the streets tomorrow afternoon doesn't mean you can't take to those same streets in protest from Wednesday.

'As one African-American activist said shortly after election day: "As much hell as we've caught over the past few hundred years, we should enjoy this one."

Olbermann on The Case for Prosecuting Bush for Torture

2009-01-20T06:12:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Some of you may recall Keith Olbermann's 'special comment' on the passing of Proposition 8 back in November (to watch it again, click here and scroll down to the end of the article). In his latest comment, made at the end of his Countdown show, Olbermann makes the case for prosecuting Bush for the war crime of torture.

Coverage of Today's Events

2009-01-20T04:41:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

As promised, here are a few links to coverage - both 'mainstream' and otherwise - of today's inauguration and the surrounding events.

The Huffington Post are providing video, live blogging and Twitter coverage of today's proceedings. I imagine they will also be assembling commentary, which can likely best be found via their inauguration 'Big News Page'. They are also streaming live video of the inauguration from MSNBC.

The Guardian's Oliver Burkeman will be live blogging the event here, as of later today.

CNN will be covering the day from 11.00 Eastern Time, including live online video streaming. The BBC are covering the event here, and the Company's Radio 4 will also be broadcasting on the events throughout the day. If you can not pick the channel up on your radio, you can tune in online here. Al Jazeera's English-language coverage of news in the Americas is posted here and the channel is live streamed here. The channel's website carries the most detailed explanation of what will take place when and where today that I have been able to find. Here is an extract.

Tuesday January 20th...
9:00am: Church service.

Coffee at the White House with George Bush, the outgoing president.

Procession to the capitol with Bush.

11:35am: Invocation from controversial evangelical pastor Dr Rick Warren.

11:46am: Joe Biden's swearing as vice-president, by John Paul Stevens, a supreme court judge.

11:56am: President's swearing-in by John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US supreme court.

The oath of office, as laid out in the US constitution: "I (Barack Hussein Obama) do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

They usually add "so help me God" at the end as George Washington did...

This year, as it has for the past several inaugurations, the swearing in ceremony will take place on the west front steps of the US congress.

Obama will be surrounded on the platform by his family, the Bushes, past and future Cabinet members, the justices of the Supreme Court, and dignitaries.

12:01pm: Inaugural address by Obama, now president of the US...

12:32pm: Departure of former president and Dick Cheney, the former vice-president: In past years, the new president and vice-president have escorted their former counterparts out through a military cordon.

12:52pm: Signing ceremony, where Obama will make his first official executive acts. He will sign executive orders possibly fulfilling campaign promises.

Some possibilities are: Lifting the ban on stem cell research, closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, banning harsh interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects, or allowing abortion services at overseas family planning centres funded by the US government.

1:05pm: Inaugural luncheon - this is one of the few times when the top tier of the US Government is in one room.

The president, vice-president, supreme court, cabinet nominees, and members of the congressional leadership will all attend.

Obama will also address members of congress and probably ask them to sign the $850bn stimulus package...

The Obamas and Bidens then review troops present at the event.

2:36pm: Trip between the US congress and the White House.

Newly sworn-in presidents and their families traditionally drive and walk the 2.7km along Pennsylvania Avenue between congress and the White House...

This year's parade will include 90 music, cultural, and community groups. About 5,000 tickets were sold to the general public for seats along the parade route.

After the parade ends, hopefully before dark, the Obamas have a bit of time to get ready for the inaugural balls...

There are 10 official balls that the Obamas will attend, including ones sponsored by Obama's home states of Hawaii and Illinois...

Wednesday January 21:
The Obamas and Bidens have invited dignitaries to attend a prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral on Wednesday morning.

It is the last inaugural event.

Democracy Now!, the daily independent liberal-left news show, will be covering today's events and will also be running a 'morning after' show tomorrow. For more details on scheduling and content, click here.

A number of protests and other events are planned for the day (see reports from this blog here and here). I imagine many of them may be covered on Washington DC's Indymedia website who are also going to be reporting on the inauguration.

And finally, the now infamous Obama Girl, whose first YouTube video launched during the primaries has now received almost 13,000,000 hits, is also said to be in town. With her web-video team from the political satire site, Barely Political, she is apparently also going to be covering the events.

White House Shoed by Protesters

2009-01-20T03:37:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

The Huffington Post is running a report on a mass protest in Washington DC where, after a session of target practice on an enormous inflatable Bush-doll, hundreds of shoes were thrown at the White House. (By the way, if that sounds like fun to you, but you missed out on yesterday's event, you might want to have a little play with this 'Goodbye Mr. Bush' game. You can choose your own way of saying goodbye, throwing either sweets (if you do, he says 'Thank you!'), flowers, shoes, eggs or WMDs.)

According to the report, Medea Benjamin from the women's antiwar group, CODE PINK, was present at the protests. The organisation are running a campaign, 'Remind Obama of his Promises for Peace'. On their website, they pledge,

'CODEPINK's promise to you is to find creative, productive ways to hold Obama to his Promises for Peace. We will be the string around his finger that reminds him to practice what he preaches and deliver the change our country so desperately needs. Please join us in REMINDING OBAMA!'

They have produced the following campaign video and organised a series of events around today's inauguration.

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama - On the occasion of his inauguration, 20 January 2009

2009-01-20T01:04:00.000-08:00

By Peter Tatchell

Dear President Barack Obama,

Congratulations on the occasion of your inauguration.

On this special day, the hopes of billions of people across our precious planet are vested in your presidency. They look to you to show practical and moral leadership in resolving the great challenges that face humanity.

You have a historic opportunity to give new expression to the United State's founding ideals of liberty, justice and equality, by defending and protecting human rights, in the US and worldwide.

There are many new policies you can initiate, at relatively little cost, which will greatly extend the realm of justice and freedom and rebuild the moral stature of the US across the globe:

Propose a new UN International Human Rights Convention, enforceable worldwide.

Recognise and support the International Criminal Court, to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Instruct the State Department to compile a Global Index of Human Rights, measuring the record and ranking of every country on key human rights issues. Raise abuses of these rights in the UN and with offending states, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, China, Sudan, Uganda, Iran, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Burma, Afghanistan, Russia, Iraq and Sri Lanka.

Make US foreign aid conditional on countries achieving significant progress towards upholding human rights.

Show the way by ending the US use of detention without trial, torture and extraordinary rendition, and by closing down Guantanamo Bay.

Cease propping up corrupt, pro-western human rights abusers, such as the governments of Uganda and Nigeria.

Use the network and resources of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to train human rights defenders and support human rights organisations, especially in poorer developing countries.

Press for the worldwide decriminalisation of same-sex acts.

Seek the universal abolition of capital punishment, and give a lead by ending the death penalty in the US.

Withdraw diplomatic, economic and military support from tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia that persistently deny freedom to their own people and oppress their own citizens, on grounds such as gender, race, nationality, religion or belief, language, sexual orientation, transgender identity and so on.

Pull out from Iraq and renounce the US policy of selective and unilateral military intervention to overthrow foreign dictatorships, like the Saddam Hussein regime, in favour of a policy supporting democratic and humanitarian civil society organisations within those countries, in order to empower the victims of oppression to liberate themselves.

Prioritise peace with justice in the Middle East, to secure a permanent negotiated settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict, including Israel's withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders and the creation of a viable, independent, democratic, secular Palestinian state, where everyone enjoys full and equal human rights.

Devise a new, more just international economic framework, where the common good, environmental protection and global equity take priority over private privilege, corporate greed and national self-interest. A fairer, sustainable, regulated and accountable international economic system is our best hope to safeguard jobs, homes, savings, public services, welfare provision, the environment and to bridge the chasm of inequality between the global north and south.

Take action to save the lives of the 1.5 billion people on our planet who are malnourished and without safe, clean drinking water. What is the point of securing human rights if millions of people are left to die of starvation and disease?

Lobby for a UN Convention Against War and Poverty, whereby the nations of the world, including the US, agree to cut their annual military expenditure by 10% and to divert the $100,000 million saved into a 'Marshall Plan 2' for the total eradication of hunger, malnutrition, dirty drinking water, poor sanitation and preventable illnesses by the year 2025.

Act now to halt the single greatest threat to the future of humanity: climate chaos. It is more of a danger than terrorism and war, and threatens the survival of all species and all races, nationalities, faiths and sexualities. Democracy and human rights mean nothing if we don't have a planet where we can enjoy these freedoms. Preserving our fragile biosphere is the precondition for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - for every human being.

Destiny awaits you, Mr President. The hopes of humanity are in your hands. May you rise to greatness as a progressive and unifying leader who shapes a freer and fairer future - not just for the American people but for the people of the whole world.

Yours with best wishes for a more peaceful, just and green planet,

Peter Tatchell

Biog: Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and human rights spokesperson for the Green Party of England and Wales. www.petertatchell.net

The First 100 Days: A Legislative Agenda

2009-01-19T17:00:00.000-08:00

By Bill Fletcher Jr

Let’s imagine that, after several months of drafting, the final touches are being placed on what has come to be known as The First 100 Days: A Working People’s Agenda for the First 100 Days of the Incoming Democratic Administration. Let’s also imagine that the drafting committee of trade unions and other progressive working-class organisations collected hundreds of ideas and developed an extensive list of recommendations for an even more comprehensive agenda; but the committee’s delicate task was to identify several key areas where the new Democratic administration must take bold emergency steps within its first 100 days to rescue the country from the already devastating recession and two disastrous wars.

The federal emergency response

The new administration’s first initiatives must be both domestic and global in scope. At the same time, it must be understood that the efforts within the first 100 days cannot represent the totality of its programme. This will require a combination of movement-building and constructing a broader social consensus in favour of significant structural change.

With that in mind, let us itemise the agenda:

1) Immediate withdrawal of US troops, bases and mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan
This should involve the following:

Asking the United Nations and Arab League for assistance in creating a multinational, transitional team to bring the various forces on the ground together, along with regional powers, to negotiate a long-term resolution of the conflict and the stabilisation of Iraq.
The elimination of any obligation on the Iraqi government to fulfill agreements imposed upon Iraq during the reign of Paul Bremer.
Bilateral discussions with Iran regarding future policies and relations with the US.
Multi-party discussions between the US, Pakistan and the various political forces in Afghanistan regarding a permanent settlement.
A renouncement of any US intentions to have permanent bases in Iraq or Afghanistan; a withdrawal of US bases from Saudi Arabia; a renouncement of US intentions to secure control over oil and/or natural gas reserves in the region.
Immediate talks toward establishing a US/European Union/Russian/Arab League/Israeli/Palestinian joint committee on the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Deployment of a special envoy to lay the foundations for this project.

2) Economic triage
The ongoing economic meltdown calls for both immediate relief and long-term management. In the short-term, however, several steps need to be taken, including, but not limited to:

A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions while providing immediate assistance to those affected by these actions to renegotiate the terms of their debt.
An extension of unemployment and food stamp benefits. Greater numbers of the working poor have come to depend on food stamps in order to survive, and the current apportionment insufficiently reflects today’s cost of living. According to the Bread for the World group, most food stamp households spend 80 per cent of their benefits by the 14th of each month. The food stamp system must be retooled to meet the full nutritional needs of its recipients.
Immediate public service job creation. As part of a longer-term initiative, the federal government must begin emergency public sector reconstruction work, focusing on bridges, tunnels and levees. We need a programme along the lines already proposed by Barack Obama, who suggested the dedication of $210 billion to create construction and environmental jobs: $60 billion would be directed to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild public projects such as highways, bridges, airports; and $150 billion would be earmarked for the creation of five million ‘green-collar’ jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. This would be funded through cuts in military spending.
Federal intervention is necessary to halt the collapse of student loan programmes. A hidden crisis, which is part of the larger credit crunch, has been the declining number of banks that offer affordable student loans. A federal intervention, therefore, is needed to make sufficient funds available.
Elimination of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, which, along with the Iraq and Afghan wars, have been bleeding the economy. Steps must be taken to reclaim the money that has been disproportionately funnelled to corporations and the wealthy. Though longer-term tax reform will be necessary, the first step is to stop the haemorrhaging.

3) A Marshall Plan for US cities and depressed regions
The Hurricane Katrina disaster and the 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse exposed significant problems with our political leadership, economic choices and the basic infrastructure of the US (not to mention race, gender and class politics when it came to Katrina). The following initiatives should be announced:

A national commitment to launch a domestic version of the Marshall Plan. This programme would involve a renewal of the US physical and social infrastructures. A successful modern-day Marshall Plan would also build upon the work of groups such as the National Jobs for All Coalition, which has proposed a 21st-century Public Investment Act. The proposal features: a Public Works Authority that, while working with state and local authorities to create permanent jobs, would provide long-term funding for high priority public works and infrastructure projects, ensuring that these projects employ the unemployed and underemployed; a Public Investment Fund that would fund a Public Service Employment Programme designed to close job gaps, while continuing to encourage job creation; and a National Employment Accounting Office that would evaluate progress and assess ongoing needs for job creation and public investment. At least 25 per cent of such jobs should be staffed by people of colour, with at least another 25 per cent staffed by women.
Regional planning authorities should be established in depressed regions to explore economic development strategies such as industrial cooperatives, public-private partnerships, and governmental incentives to encourage the creation of new industries.
Emergency measures to provide more low-income housing. This would include legislation for a federal affordable housing trust fund and a housing assistance tax act, which would, among other provisions, provide tax credits to first-time homebuyers.

4) Immediate signing of the Kyoto Protocol
The US is way behind the rest of the world on the environment. Our over-dependence on fossil fuels has straitjacketed the global economy (making the greater international community highly dependent on oil), which has contributed to the rising global temperature. The environmental crisis, however, is not limited to global warming. The endangerment of various species paints a disturbing picture of an unravelling ecology. Most urgently, the new administration must:

Sign the Kyoto Protocol, while making a commitment to launch international negotiations towards a new and stronger pact.
Push through a renewable energy and job creation act to promote renewable energy, green-collar jobs, and tax benefits to middle-class families.
Establish a ‘Green Commission’ that brings together labour, business, environmental groups, community-based organisations and government representatives to recommend technological, economic and developmental changes geared toward building a sustainable economy.

5) Pass and sign the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)
As a step toward jettisoning the one-sided class war against workers, the new administration must:

Reaffirm the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)’s mandate that it is within US public policy to promote collective bargaining. It must draft legislation that proscribes any employer involvement in their workers’ choice of bargaining representatives.

6) A universal health care initiative
Universal, single-payer health care cannot take flight within the first 100 days. The groundwork, however, must be laid immediately. The new administration must:

Establish a commission to draft legislation for universal, single-payer coverage.
Plan for a one year drafting period, followed by national town meetings and hearings.
Aim for passage before the midterm elections.

7) Immigration reform
Immediate steps must be taken to lay out an immigration reform programme that is coupled with changes in US foreign policy. This reform programme must include:

Amnesty (in the form of permanent residency status) for undocumented workers who have no criminal record.
A revised application process that gives priority to refugees from areas of political conflict where the US has been historically involved.
Elimination of guest worker programmes. Investigation of already existing programmes’ impact on domestic and foreign-born workers.
Unionisation rights for all workers within US borders, irrespective of their immigration status.

8) Forge global partnerships
Changing US foreign policy is an uphill, long-term process. Nevertheless, certain immediate measures are imperative. In addition to withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, the new administration must:

Create a 21st-century partnership programme to develop foreign aid and trade programmes designed to promote more self-reliance among nation states, while responding to the civilian needs in those areas.
Promote trade relations based on fairness rather than on corporate interests. Explore a renegotiation of NAFTA.
Implement the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with steps toward de-nuclearisation.
Employ special envoys for peace and development who will work with regional representatives to address matters such as political conflict, economic underdevelopment and environmental devastation.

Conclusion: a qualifying thought
This agenda will be moot without strong backing from social forces that are prepared to press for its implementation.

Any demobilisation of those who successfully brought the Democratic candidate to victory will buoy the political right’s leverage to assert its own agenda.

Right-wing forces will push for a continuation of the Bush administration’s anti-progressive policies.

Thus, if we are not prepared consistently to place enough pressure on our new ‘friend’ in the White House, we should expect a repeat of the Bill Clinton years, in which there was (technically) a high degree of access to the president and top cabinet officials, but the progressive social movements were afforded very little in the way of actual power.

The choice is ours, and we have precious little time to decide how we want to proceed.

Note: This article first appeared in the December/January issue of Red Pepper magazine, it is published here on the day before Day 1 of the new Obama administration.

Biog: Bill Fletcher Jr is the executive editor of BlackCommentator.com and a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies. He is the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and the co-author of Solidarity Divided, which analyses the crisis in organised labour in the US.

Hansen: Only Four Years for Obama to Deal with Climate Change

2009-01-19T16:19:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

In an interview in Sunday's Observer newspaper, NASA scientist and leading climatologist James Hansen said there were only four years left in which to avert global disaster resulting from climate change: cities flooded, species extinct, spreading deserts and melted sea caps. Hansen, who has previously written to Obama on the issue of climate change, argued that,

'We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.'

He expresses strong criticism of the cap-and-trade system, encouraged by Kyoto, which enables emissions trading. The article argues,

'Thus plans to include carbon trading schemes in talks about future climate agreements were a desperate error, he said. "It's just greenwash. I would rather the forthcoming Copenhagen climate talks fail than we agree to a bad deal," Hansen said.'

Climate activists are planning on mobilising for protests in Copenhagen around the summit. Many are skeptical that much positive will result from the negotiations. In a text distributed at the talks' preparatory meeting in Poznań last month, written by Tadzio Mueller of Turbulence and Alexis Passadakis from Germany's attac network, the pair argued,

'The chance that governments will come up with a ‘good deal’ in Copenhagen is slim to none. Our aim must therefore be to demand agreement on real solutions. Failing that: to forget Kyoto, and shut down Copenhagen!'

It seems they have, perhaps, found an ally.

The Observer article continues, explaining,

'Hansen's strident calls for action stem from his special view of our changing world. He and his staff monitor temperatures relayed to the institute - an anonymous brownstone near Columbia University - from thousands of sites around the world, including satellites and bases in Antarctica. These have revealed that our planet has gone through a 0.6C rise in temperature since 1970, with the 10 hottest years having occurred between 1997 and 2008: unambiguous evidence, he believes, that Earth is beginning to overheat dangerously.

'Last week, however, Hansen revealed his findings for 2008 which show, surprisingly, that last year was the coolest this century, although still hot by standards of the 20th century. The finding will doubtless be seized on by climate change deniers, for whom Hansen is a particular hate figure, and used as "evidence" that global warming is a hoax.

'However, deniers should show caution, Hansen insisted: most of the planet was exceptionally warm last year. Only a strong La Niña - a vast cooling of the Pacific that occurs every few years - brought down the average temperature. La Niña would not persist, he said. "Before the end of Obama's first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that."'

Bush's Buddy, Julie Burchill

2009-01-18T10:42:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

Julie Burchill in today's Sun does her bit to defend the Bush administration's record. Having done 'more than most to help Africa', and been utterly unfairly criticised for his handling of Katrina, the outgoing President is also portrayed as a thoroughly deferential chap - comfortable asking his staff if he can have 'a bathroom break' during a UN summit. And all this whilst being a formidable book worm.

Preparing for Very Slow Change

2009-01-18T09:15:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

If today's New York Times/CBS poll is anything to go by, many Americans are prepared to allow Obama years to bring about the changes he promised during his election campaign. The Times reported,

'While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found, expectations for what Mr. Obama will actually be able to accomplish appear to have been tempered by the scale of the nation’s problems at home and abroad.

'The findings suggest that Mr. Obama has achieved some success with his effort, which began with his victory speech in Chicago in November, to gird Americans for a slow economic recovery and difficult years ahead after a campaign that generated striking enthusiasm and high hopes for change.

'Most Americans said they did not expect real progress in improving the economy, reforming the health care system or ending the war in Iraq - three of the central promises of Mr. Obama’s campaign - for at least two years.'

Over 80% of respondents believed the country to be in a worse state than it was five years ago. A total of 79% were optimistic about the incoming administration, as were 58% of respondents who voted for McCain. 'His favorable rating, at 60 percent,' the paper reported, 'is the highest it has been since the Times/CBS News poll began asking about him... Over 70 percent said they approved of his cabinet selections.'

Gary Younge on Obama's Meaning to the World

2009-01-18T04:59:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Gary Younge has an article titled, 'What Obama Means to the World' in the forthcoming, February 2, issue of the Nation. He argues,

'There was, of course, more to the euphoria over Obama's victory than the question of exclusion - however and wherever it is framed. The defeat of the Republican agenda, with all the war and global havoc it has brought over the past eight years, was enough to make the world jump for joy. After Bush won in 2004, Britain's Daily Mirror ran a headline saying, 'Doh: 4 More Years Of Dubya... How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?' The Guardian's features supplement ran a page all in black with tiny words saying, 'Oh My God!' Many understand Obama as America's belated but nonetheless more considered, less cavalier response to 9/11.

'As one of the few members of America's political class not tainted by the Iraq invasion, he appeared a thinker as well as a decider. Worldly where Bush was parochial, consensual where Bush was confrontational, nuanced where Bush was brash, he struck the outside world as though he regarded dialogue and negotiation as strengths rather than weaknesses. With his Kenyan roots, multiracial upbringing and childhood experiences in Indonesia, he also struck a more global figure. Of twenty-two countries polled by Pew Research last July, in only one nation, Jordan, did a majority say they had more confidence in McCain than in Obama. In the remaining twenty-one, nine (ranging from Tanzania to Japan) backed Obama by more than thirty points. In only six was the margin in single digits.

'This enthusiasm was not spread evenly geographically. Western Europe (particularly France) was elated, while the Middle East was wary. "In these nations, suspicions of American power are pervasive and extend beyond President Bush's personal unpopularity," argued Richard Wike of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. "Unlike in many other regions, in the Middle East there is little optimism about the post-Bush era." Nonetheless, with America's international standing at an all-time low, a change of direction was generally welcome.

'But while antipathy toward Bush and what he had done to the world explains the breadth of Obama's appeal, it could never explain the depth. Relatives of mine in Barbados and Ireland followed the primaries closely. Children of friends at home in England asked if they could stay up to see the election results. They would never have done that for John Kerry.'

However, he warns,

'People's obsession with Obama always said more about them than him. Most wanted a paradigm shift in global politics, and, unable to elect governments that could fight for it, they simply assigned that role to Obama. His silence during the shelling of Gaza, however, was sobering for many. As a mainstream Democrat he stands at the head of a party that in any other Western nation would be on the right on foreign policy, the center on economic policy and the center-left on social policy.

'Come inauguration day, that final symbolic set piece, the transition will be complete. The rest of the world must become comfortable with a black American, not as a symbol of protest but of power. And not of any power but a superpower, albeit a broken and declining one. A black man with more power than they. How that will translate into the different political cultures around the globe, whom it will inspire, how it will inspire them and what difference that inspiration will make will vary. From inauguration day people's perceptions of Obama will no longer hinge on what he is but on what he does.'

Inauguration Speech – Tom’s First Draft

2009-01-18T04:06:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Tom Engelhardt, editor of TomDispatch.com, has offered up a first draft of Obama’s inauguration speech – at once an apology, a recognition of the need to do better, and acknowledgement of the scale of the problems faced.

You can read Engelhardt’s preamble to the draft by following the link above. Here is the text of the speech itself.

In a Dark Valley
Barack Obama's Inaugural Address

‘In my lifetime, presidents have regularly come before you, the American people, proclaiming new dawns or hailing this country as a shining city upon a hill, an example to the rest of the world. But on this cold, wintry day, I hardly need tell you that we seem to have joined much of the rest of the world in an increasingly shadowy, sunless valley.

‘We - not just we Americans but all of us - are living in a world in peril, one in which we have far more to fear than fear itself. And don't imagine, having just taken the oath of office on the Bible Abraham Lincoln laid his hand on in an earlier moment of national crisis, that I don't have my own fears about the task ahead. I can't help but worry whether my abilities are up to challenges, which would surely have been daunting even to a Washington, a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt.

‘Nonetheless, you elected me. You have, I know, invested your hopes in me in these trying times. And fortunately, I sense that you are at my side now and will, I hope, remain there, encouraging and criticizing, praising or chiding as you see fit, through the worst and, with luck, the best of times. I'm thankful for that. Without your support, your wisdom, what could I hope to accomplish? We - and in this presidency, when I use that word, I will mean you and me, not the royal "we" to which American presidents have become far too attached - we can, I think, hope to accomplish much, but only if we're honest with ourselves.

‘This nation was founded in the immodest modesty of experimentation by men who hoped for much but were aware that they did not always know what might work. They were ready to falter, to fall on their faces, to fail, and yet not to quit. We - you and I - must be willing to do the same. In this difficult moment, we must be willing to acknowledge our limits, to admit our mistakes, and to welcome all others who care to join us, or want us to join them, on the path of experimentation in a needy world.

‘Let me, then, start - not simply as your new president but as a human being, a proud American, and the father of two children who deserve a better future, not a thoroughly degraded world - with two simple words: I'm sorry.

‘In the last eight years, we Americans have in no way lived up to our better natures. Our country has, in fact, repeatedly caused grievous damage to others and to ourselves. The mistakes, the misguided policies, have been legion. We - you and I - must do our best to correct them and make amends. For Americans, at home and abroad, there must be a better way.

‘The kidnapping of people off the streets of global cities, the disappearing of suspects who have no chance to face judge or jury, the torture, abuse, and killing of prisoners, these are wounds inflicted on the world and on ourselves. There must be a better way.

‘Shock-and-awe assaults on other nations, whether by ourselves or allies we've green-lighted, lead - it should be clear enough by now - to horrors beyond measure visited on civilians. There must be a better way.

‘The repeated firing of missiles at, and the bombing of, villages halfway across the globe, the repeated killing of innocent farm families while on missions to protect ourselves, constitutes a global war for terror, not against it. There must be a better way.
The twisting of our Constitution into whatever shape a president (and his lawyers) find useful or power-enhancing constitutes a body blow to this nation. There must be a better way.

‘The offering of vast bailouts, without strings or oversight, to the most profligate and greediest among us, while ignoring the daily suffering of ordinary Americans inflicts grievous harm on our society. There must be a better way.

‘The turning of our government - your government - into a surveillance state, a spy society, meant to eternally watch you cannot represent the fulfillment of the dreams of Washington or Jefferson. There must be a better way.

‘Transforming the heavens into a storage depot for greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels is like passing a death sentence on humanity. There must be a better way.

‘Considering war and military action the solution of first, not last, resort whenever a difficult or painful problem arises represents a disastrous path. There must be a better way.
Of all times, this is no time to be at war. For our recent wars, all of us have paid a heavy price, not just in lives that should never have been lost, but in distraction from what truly matters.

‘We were once proudly a can do nation. For the last eight years, we have been a can't do nation, incapable of rebuilding great cities or small towns, replacing failing bridges or shoring up our systems of levees. And yet we've had the presumption to believe that we, who had lost the knack for rebuilding at home, had a special ability to rebuild other societies far from home. All of this has to end now. We need to do better.

‘Everywhere on this shaky planet people feel insecure and unsafe - and we have only sharpened such feelings in these last years. To feel secure and safe should be the most basic of rights. It is, however, far past time for us to give the very idea of security new meaning. Yes, we must protect ourselves. Any country must do that for its citizens, but you, the American people, must also hear a truth that has not been said in these last eight years. It is a fantasy to believe that, in the long run, we can make ourselves secure to the detriment of everyone else. On that path lies only insecurity for all. We need to do better.

‘In policy terms, tomorrow is the day to roll up our sleeves and begin, but today I want to say to you: Don't despair. Yes, the news is grim. Yes, as Americans and as citizens of this world we should know our limits and the increasingly apparent limits of our small planet, but we should also dream, and struggle, and plan, and innovate.

‘I repeated one phrase many times during the long presidential campaign, and I emphatically repeat it today: Yes, we can!

‘And when we do, we have to reach out to the world with our discoveries and ideas, but without the sense that those discoveries, those ideas, are the be-all and end-all. We have to learn how to listen as well as teach.

‘Our planet will either be an ark, which will carry us, and our children and grandchildren, through time and space, or it will be our grave. This is a stark choice that seems no choice at all. But believe me, to choose the ark, not the grave, is the hardest thing of all. Nonetheless, may that be the choice to which we Americans consecrate ourselves on this day and in all the days to come.

‘Thank you and God bless us all.’

Trade Unions at the Inauguration

2009-01-17T06:28:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

In what Jason Lefkowitz on the Change to Win Federation of trade unions' website describes as, 'the first time in living memory', labour unions have been invited to participate in the Presidential inauguration parade.

Members of Change to Win, the AFL-CIO, and the National Education Association will take part in Tuesday's parade, along with a float.

The unions played a leading role in Obama's election campaign, but according to a recent blog post by Guardian America's editor, Michael Tomasky, they still have some way to go in order to pressure the incoming administration to deliver swiftly on the Employee Free Choice Act upon which many unions' endorsement was conditional.

Battle Over Bush Era Legacy

2009-01-17T04:24:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

It is now considered almost common sense to say that George W. Bush is the worst US President ever to have held the office. With his repeated claims, however, to have been misunderestimated, the battle over the administration's legacy is on.

The White House have recently released a document entitled, 100 Things Americans Might Not Know About the Bush Administration Record. It is an (unnumbered!) list things the administration consider achievements to be celebrated. Predictably, not everyone agrees on the need to celebrate, or the legitimacy of some of the claims - see for example this post at the Daily Kos.

According to Politico.com, Democratic Congressman John Conyers Jr. this week released a 486-page report 'documenting a litany of alleged abuses by Bush and members of his administration.'

Numerous newspapers are currently running retrospectives on the administration and it's record. The New York Times have here assembled links to a collection of articles on the 43rd Presidency, including a list of reviews of books on Bush and his administration. The Washington Post are running a number of pieces on the 'best and worst' of the Bush years. And the Guardian have put together a series of articles, published today, on various aspects of the administration's record - from the environment to civil liberties, the economy, and Aids in Africa - and some of the leading figures within it. The Financial Times today report on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's 'fond farewell' speech as Bush prepares to depart from office.

The Guardian America have produced a 17 minute film on the Bush years, interviewing their own columnists, as well as writers for the New York Times, the Economist, and Slate.com.

The Economist, in their final issue before Bush's departure, are running a four page article carrying the sub-header, 'Few people will mourn the departure of the 43rd president'. The magazine clearly do not include themselves within this few, despite their 2000 endorsement of his presidential candidacy. (In 2004 they endorsed Kerry and in 2008 Obama).

Bloggers (like myself) are also chipping in. David Corn, over at the Mother Jones magazine's 'MoJo' blog, has put together a list of topics Bush studiously avoided in his farewell speech. On the Huffington Post, there are pieces by Joseph Nye, and the website's editor Arianna Huffington, amongst others. Scott Horton, on his Harper's magazine 'No Comment' blog, compares the farewell addresses of two George W.'s (Washington and W. Bush).

And, of course, satirists, comedians and TV talk show hosts - who have been provided with endless material by the President over the last eight years - have also been paying their final 'respects'. The following video montage was put together for CBS's Late Show with David Letterman. It marked the end of a series they had been running called, 'Great Moments in Presidential Speeches'. (It was, of course, in large part Bush's lack of eloquence which lead to his being 'misunderestimated' in the first place...)

Obama to End Military's Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell Policy

2009-01-16T07:35:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

In the following video, put together by the Obama transition team, incoming Press Secretary Robert Gibbs answers some questions posted to the Change.gov website, amongst them: what will happen to the don't-ask-don't-tell policy on lesbians and gays in the military? The answer (to see it, skip to 4.18 mins): it will be abolished.

Bill Clinton sought to end the ban on homosexuality within the US armed forces at the beginning of his first term, and failed. The don't-ask-don't-tell policy was the compromise.

Holder: 'Waterboarding is Torture' and Gitmo Will Close

2009-01-16T06:50:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

As mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Eric J. Holder's Senate confirmation hearing began yesterday and is expected to continue today. He has been nominated as Attorney General.

In the following video excerpt from yesterday's hearing, Holder states that waterboarding is torture and the President of the United States does not have the authority to sanction it.

In this next video, he reiterates Obama's statement that 'Guantánamo will be closed', although 'it will not be an easy task'. He hints that it may well take some time:

(On this question, you might like to take a look at Willem Buiter's Maverecon blog over at the Financial Times. Buiter, the former Chief Economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and currently a Professor at the London School of Economics, in a strongly worded posting argues that 'The moral turpitude and ethical spinelessness of the Bush administration over the Guantánamo Bay detention camp have also infected president-elect Barack Obama.' The right thing to do, he argues, is simple: 'Just after midnight, on Tuesday January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama officially becomes the 44th president of the United States of America [actually, it's 12:00 noon that he becomes President, not midnight - but we get the gist, he means: right away. BT], all remaining Guantánamo detainees are put on a plane and are flown to the USA, where they are put under the jurisdiction and control of the US court system.')

And here he fudges his answer as to whether or not he would pursue prosecutions against members of the Bush administration - hedging his bets between a 'we don't want to criminalise policy differences' and 'nobody is above the law' position.

He was also quizzed on his basketball skills.

Comment and initial (generally positive) response to Holder's answers can be found at the Daily Kos as well as the Nation and the Huffington Post.

"43" Says Goodbye

2009-01-16T06:13:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

George W. Bush held his farewell speech in the East Room of the White House last night. The full self-congratulatory transcript is online here. By following the same link, you can also watch the whole thing on video.

The speech touches on the post-9/11 overhaul of government which saw, amongst other things, the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the perceived successes of the Afghanistan and Iraq interventions - and, of course, the importance of the struggle of 'good' against 'evil'.

FOX News' latest poll (January 13-14) puts Bush's job approval rating at 34%. Real Clear Politics' average puts it at 29.3%.

'Guardian' Guide to Inauguration Day

2009-01-15T08:46:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The Guardian have produced an online, interactive guide to the events planned in the lead up to Obama's inauguration on Tuesday - although it neglects to mention what will no doubt be a highlight for many: Bush being escorted to a helicopter and flown out of Washington, having left the Presidency for good.

On Monday or Tuesday, I will post a few links to blogs, radio and TV stations covering the events.

And In Case You're Wondering What They All Look Like...

2009-01-15T06:32:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

New York Times magazine photographer, Nadav Kander, has taken 52 portrait photographs of Obama's top advisors. The photographs are beautifully shot, and are of a collection of individuals who will clearly be playing important roles in policy making over the next few years. So, if you are curious about what they look like, you can find the photos here. They will also be published in Sunday's edition of the New York Times magazine.

In other photographic news...

I know that Obama's face is probably now one of the most widely recognised in the world, and that you probably do not need to refresh your memory. Nevertheless, I thought I would point out that the transition team have just released the 'official portrait' of the president-elect.

Michael Shaw, publisher of the BAGnewsNotes blog, has issued an invitation, on the Huffington Post, to discuss the portrait. In his profile, he describes his blog, 'The BAG', as offering 'a daily semiotic analysis of news and political images from a political, cultural or psychological point of view, and is also a platform for original social photography and photojournalism.'

'Washington Post' on Inauguration Protest Plans

2009-01-15T04:44:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

There is an article in yesterday's Washington Post on the protests planned in Washington DC during next week's inauguration. Events are planned by progressives, radicals and anarchists - as well as anti-abortion activists.

For some background information, take a look at the article posted to this blog a week ago.

Žižek on Obama's Election

2009-01-15T04:07:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

I've only just stumbled across the following piece by the philosopher Slavoj Žižek, published in the London Review of Books ten days after Obama's election in November. The article is titled 'Use Your Illusions' and opens as follows,

'Noam Chomsky called for people to vote for Obama ‘without illusions’. I fully share Chomsky’s doubts about the real consequences of Obama’s victory: from a pragmatic perspective, it is quite possible that Obama will make only some minor improvements, turning out to be ‘Bush with a human face’. He will pursue the same basic policies in a more attractive way and thus effectively strengthen the US hegemony, damaged by the catastrophe of the Bush years.

'There is nonetheless something deeply wrong with this reaction – a key dimension is missing from it. Obama’s victory is not just another shift in the eternal parliamentary struggle for a majority, with all the pragmatic calculations and manipulations that involves. It is a sign of something more. This is why an American friend of mine, a hardened leftist with no illusions, cried when the news came of Obama’s victory. Whatever our doubts, for that moment each of us was free and participating in the universal freedom of humanity.

'In The Contest of Faculties, Kant asked a simple but difficult question: is there true progress in history? (He meant ethical progress, not just material development.) He concluded that progress cannot be proven, but we can discern signs which indicate that progress is possible. The French Revolution was such a sign, pointing towards the possibility of freedom: the previously unthinkable happened, a whole people fearlessly asserted their freedom and equality. For Kant, even more important than the – often bloody – reality of what went on on the streets of Paris was the enthusiasm that the events in France gave rise to in the eyes of sympathetic observers all around Europe and in places as far away as Haiti, where it triggered another world-historical event: the first revolt by black slaves. Arguably the most sublime moment of the French Revolution occurred when the delegation from Haiti, led by Toussaint l’Ouverture, visited Paris and were enthusiastically received at the Popular Assembly as equals among equals.

'Obama’s victory is a sign of history in the triple Kantian sense of signum rememorativum, demonstrativum, prognosticum. A sign in which the memory of the long past of slavery and the struggle for its abolition reverberates; an event which now demonstrates a change; a hope for future achievements. The scepticism displayed behind closed doors even by many worried progressives – what if, in the privacy of the voting booth, the publicly disavowed racism will re-emerge? – was proved wrong. One of the interesting things about Henry Kissinger, the ultimate cynical Realpolitiker, is how utterly wrong most of his predictions were. When news reached the West of the 1991 anti-Gorbachev military coup, for example, Kissinger immediately accepted the new regime as a fact. It collapsed ignominiously three days later. The paradigmatic cynic tells you confidentially: ‘But don’t you see that it is all really about money/power/sex, that professions of principle or value are just empty phrases which count for nothing?’ What the cynics don’t see is their own naivety, the naivety of their cynical wisdom which ignores the power of illusions.

'The reason Obama’s victory generated such enthusiasm is not only that, against all odds, it really happened: it demonstrated the possibility of such a thing happening. The same goes for all great historical ruptures – think of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although we all knew about the rotten inefficiency of the Communist regimes, we didn’t really believe that they would disintegrate – like Kissinger, we were all victims of cynical pragmatism. Obama’s victory was clearly predictable for at least two weeks before the election, but it was still experienced as a surprise.

'The true battle begins now, after the victory...'

Read on here.

Questioning Holder

2009-01-15T03:13:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The Senate confirmation hearing of Eric J. Holder as Attorney General is scheduled for today. USA Today describe the nomination as having so far 'generated the most Republican opposition'.

The New York Times' op-ed pages are running a collection of questions which 5 legal experts say they would like to hear Holder asked before confirmation. The questions address, amongst other issues, legal approval which will (or will not) be given for covert counterterrorism operations, whether he believes the threat of legal investigations impede good-faith decissions within the 'intelligence community', whether or not he has any regrets about his role in the controversial issuing of pardons during the Clinton administration, whether the President has the right to detain terror suspects without trial (and for how long), and whether or not individual Americans have the constitutional right to keep fire-arms for self-defense?

Actor and film-maker, John Cusack, wrote an article for the Huffington Post a couple of days ago in which he suggested two questions Holder should be asked.

'1. Is waterboarding torture?'

And,

'2. Since we know the Bush administration at the highest levels approved waterboarding which is torture which is a war crime, will you appoint a special prosecutor and fulfill your duty to see that justice and the rule of law apply to all Americans? Can you assure us neither circumstance nor convenience nor competing interests be allowed to suppress our fundamental principals - one being that rule of law applies to members of own government.'

The Nation editors have also assembled a collection of questions by 'legal eagles from our orbit' which they would pose to Holder. The editorial explains that Obama's nomination for Attorney General deserves particular scrutiny,

'Not because we expect criminality of the sort authorized by Ashcroft [a Bush era Attorney General] and company but because merely to undo eight years of official corruption will require an extraordinary attorney general - a principled, visionary, independent upholder of law and justice.'

Pictures of Obama Burned in Tehran

2009-01-14T11:34:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Posters of Obama have been burned in the Iranian capital, Tehran, during protests 'in support of Gaza'. Reuters reported,

'The demonstrators, waving Palestinian flags, some chanting "Death to Obama," had gathered outside the Swiss embassy which handles U.S. interests because Tehran and Washington have not had diplomatic ties for nearly three decades.

'Pictures obtained by Reuters showed the president-elect's image laid on the road for cars to drive over it, and other images showed demonstrators burning the Obama poster.'

Associated Press have also published a story on a new recording, said to be of Osama Bin Laden, 'aimed at harnessing anger in the Mideast over the Gaza offensive', and in which he makes reference to Obama. The article, published on the Huffington Post website, reads,

'Bin Laden spoke in an audiotape posted Wednesday on Islamic militant Web sites where al-Qaida usually issues its messages. It was his first tape since May and came nearly three weeks after Israel started its campaign against Gaza's militant Hamas rulers.

'The al-Qaida leader also vowed that the terror network would open "new fronts" against the United States and its allies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. He said President-elect Barack Obama has received a "heavy inheritance" from George W. Bush two wars and "the collapse of the economy," which he said will render the United States unable to sustain a long fight against the mujahedeen, or holy warriors.'

The Future of Gitmo

2009-01-12T15:30:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Over the last couple of days, Obama has drawn attention after indicating, on Sunday, his reluctance to look into the legality of the Bush administration's treatment of terror suspects and eavesdropping. He did so on the ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos. (Incidentally, on the same day, Bush was on Fox News admitting to personally authorising 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (torture) on at least one occasion. To see the video, click here and scroll down to the end of Scott Horton's blog entry.)

In the ABC show, Obama is also said to have mentioned that the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp was unlikely to happen within the first 100 days of his administration. The New York Times have a lengthy report on the interview, with some speculation as to the factors Obama may be taking into consideration.

However, Associated Press are today reporting that the executive order to close the camp could be issued as early his first week - or even day - in office.

Obama has, of course, been coming under considerable pressure to live up to his promise to close down 'Gitmo' as early as possible. As reported here in November, the American Civil Liberties Union have been running a campaign, calling for Obama to close the camp on day one of his presidency.

Obama Team Deny 'Guardian' Reports on Hamas Talk Plans

2009-01-11T10:32:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Haaretz yesterday carried an article in which a senior Obama spokesperson appeared to deny the reports, published in the Guardian on Thursday, that the president-elect is preparing to change the Bush administration's isolationist approach to Hamas.

The liberal-left Israeli paper quoted Brooke Anderson, the Chief National Security Spokesperson for Obama's transition team, as saying,

'The President-elect has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements... The President elect's repeated statements are accurate... This unsourced story is not.'

Torture Top Concern at Change.gov

2009-01-11T06:02:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

According to a blog entry over at the Nation, around 70,000 questions poured into the Obama team's transition website, Change.gov, in response to a request for enquiries from the public. The questions were voted on by close to 100,000 people. They decided the following was the most important,

'Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor - ideally Patrick Fitzgerald - to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping'

The question was submitted by Bob Fertick from Democrats.com. Fitzgerald is the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, with a high profile due to his involvement in the cases against both Lewis 'Scooter' Libby and Rod Blagojevich.

Camp Hope

2009-01-11T05:36:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Camp Hope has been running in Hyde Park, Chicago, from January 1 and will continue until Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 19, the day before Obama's inauguration.

The goal of the camp is to maintain left/progressive pressure on the president-elect, including asking him to live up to his campaign promises.

A statement on the Camp's website reads,

Camp Hope - Countdown to Change

In January, 2009, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as president of the United States. We earnestly hope his presidency will signal the dawning of long-needed progressive change in the United States. To help build popular momentum behind the progressive goals of President Obama’s campaign, we invite you to join us in maintaining a 19-day presence, from January 1 – 19, 2009, in Hyde Park, Chicago: "Camp Hope: Countdown To Change."

Every day from New Years’ to Dr. Martin Luther King Day, whatever winter has in store for us, we will set up at the intersection of East Hyde Park Boulevard and South Drexel Avenue to congratulate Senator Obama as our new President-elect and recommit ourselves to progressive actions he promoted on his campaign trail. We are urging President-elect Obama to take eight actions immediately upon being sworn into office, and reminding ourselves that these are only eight early steps to more profound policy changes.

Camp Hope seeks action on:

War in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
Global Climate Change
Nuclear Weapons
Guantanamo and Torture
Immigrant Rights
Unemployment and the Prison-Industrial Complex
Housing Foreclosures
Universal Health Care

Inauguration Tickets Sell Out in Under a Minute

2009-01-10T05:22:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

5,000 tickets for Obama's inauguration parade on sale to the public are said to have sold out in under a minute, according to CBS News.

Meanwhile, MSNBC are quoting the Chief of Police in Washington DC as saying no protests by anarchists are expected at the inauguration this year. Previous years saw large protests against the inauguration of George W. Bush at the beginning of both his first and second terms.

As reported on this blog a couple of days ago, anarchists and others are expected to attend the inauguration events - with a 'presence' rather than 'protest' - in critical solidarity with those 'who see in the Obama campaign the possibility of their own agency.'

The SWP on Obama’s Victory

2009-01-10T05:12:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The latest issue of the Socialist Workers’ Party’s quarterly journal, International Socialism, contains an article on Obama’s electoral victory.

The article argues that the campaign was able to galvanise energy and momentum generated by the anti-war movement and the (primarily Hispanic American) movement for immigrants’ rights. The economic crisis also helped hammer home the desperate need for change. However, ‘Electoral “revolutions”’, the article argues, ‘sometimes share something in common with the real thing.’ It continues,

‘Different forces come together out of a common sense of grievance against an old order, even though they have diametrically opposed class interests - and some committed supporters of the old order jump on the bandwagon in order to influence its course. This was true of the Popular Front election victories in France and Spain in 1936, the Labour victory in Britain in 1945 and, for that matter, the Roosevelt victory in the US in November 1932.

‘Important sections of the US ruling class were involved in the Obama campaign. Their disagreements with George Bush and John McCain were not over maximising the profitability of US corporations or reinforcing US global hegemony, but over the Republicans’ military adventurism in Iraq that had damaged these goals.’

The piece calls into question, however, the extent to which those assembled within the Obama team, to deal with the twin crises of the economy and Iraq (amongst other issues!), will be in control of or controlled by events – before going on to discuss the role the left should play.

‘Rubin, Summers, Geithner and Orszag have no real idea how to deal with the [economic] crisis in a way that keeps all the rival interests happy. Nor do Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates have any notion of how to deal with Iraq without strengthening Iran, or how to deal with Afghanistan without further destabilising Pakistan and the whole subcontinent. This is a recipe for an administration that will be whirled round by events rather than controlling them. And that potentially provides leeway for the immense popular bitterness below the surface that gave Obama his victory to find further ways to express itself and to gain some victories for itself.

‘This will not happen through the Democratic Party’s networks. However deep seated the feelings Obama tapped during the election campaign are, his party’s structures have an immense capacity to incorporate and neutralise those who would fight for real change. They did this at the time of the huge upsurge in union strength in the mid-1930s and they did it in the aftermath of the civil rights and anti-war movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s. They are trying to do it again. That is why the many thousands of radicals, socialists and anti-war activists who reject the Democratic Party are right to do so. But it is also why they now have to relate to the aspirations of black, Hispanic and white workers who voted Democrat because they wanted the very change the Democrats will not give them.’

The December 2008 issue of another of the organisation's publications, Socialist Review, also carries several articles on meaning of Obama's victory.

Palin Interview

2009-01-09T05:11:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Conservative documentary maker and former talk radio host, John Ziegler, has posted some raw footage online of an interview he shot with Sarah Palin for his forthcoming film, 'Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected and Palin Got Smeared'.

The interview certainly seems to be with somebody determined to do damage-control to her reputation, following hard time she perceives herself as getting from the mean old liberal-elitist media. A future run for the Presidency would clearly seem to be on her mind.

Potential for Change in US-Venezuela Relations?

2009-01-09T04:11:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The following article at Bloomberg.com is one of many recently published in the mainstream as well as alternative media speculating on the possibility (or in some cases, the lack thereof) for a change in the relationship between the US and Venezuela, with Obama replacing Bush as President later this month.

For more on this, it is worth keeping an eye on both the recently revived Red Pepper blog on Venezuela, as well as the websites Upside Down World and VenezuelaAnalysis.com.

'New Yorker' Editor on Obama, the Middle East and History

2009-01-09T04:01:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

New Yorker editor, David Remnick, has a comment piece in the magazine's forthcoming January 12 edition contemplating the meaning and possibility of an Obama presidency. He discusses the legacy of slavery, what his election does and does not mean for race in America, and the extent of the challenges with which the 44th President will be faced - particularly in the Middle East.

Nerd in Chief

2009-01-08T13:38:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

On a more lighthearted note...

Obama has made friends with Spider-Man. He'll be featuring in a special inauguration day issue of Marvel Comic's Amazing Spider-Man. Obama is said to have collected the comics as a child. Marvel's Editor-in-Chief said,

'How great is that? The commander in chief to be is actually a nerd in chief... It was really, really cool to see that we had a geek in the White House. We're all thrilled with that.'

USA Today have a preview of some of the special issue's panels.

'Guardian' Claim Obama Camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

2009-01-08T13:06:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

The Guardian are this evening running an article, said to be based on having spoken to 'three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp', claiming,

'The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon President Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation'.

A variety of possibly means by which this may take place are speculated on in the article, from contact being established by low-level US officials, to the creation of multilateral structures involving 'the Europeans'. A third opinion is cited which suggests talks would be dependent on the severe 'drubbing' of Hamas' military wing in the current conflict in Gaza.

US Confidence in Obama Remains High

2009-01-08T03:48:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Gallup are reporting that, as of January 7, 65% of Americans remain confident in Obama's ability 'to be a good President'. This is slightly down from the 70% high of January 2-4. A Gallup daily tracking poll can be found online here.

RealClearPolitics.com report that, in early December, Bush's job approval rating averaged at 27.4%. An all time low of below 20% had been reached earlier in 2008.

Obama Breaks Silence on Gaza Conflict

2009-01-08T03:37:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Obama yesterday finally broke his silence on the Gaza conflict, explaining, 'We are going to engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflicts that exist in the Middle East,' adding that, 'the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern to me, and after January 20th I am going to have plenty to say about the issue.'

The Washington Post reported,

'Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to the United Nations yesterday to meet with Arab and European diplomats on possible terms of a truce, pressing the Bush administration's case that a cease-fire must be permanent and not grant Hamas the ability to rebuild its military arsenal. There is little indication that Obama and his team differ significantly from that approach.'

Inauguration Day Plans

2009-01-08T03:09:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Barack Obama’s January 20 inauguration day draws closer. At exactly 12:00 noon, he will accept the Presidency, taking the following oath,

'I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

Record numbers are expected to attend, including supporters, well-wishers and critics. The inauguration of George W. Bush at the beginning of both his first and second terms drew large numbers of protesters.

At least two calls have been issued by radicals (specifically: radicals generally opposed to or sceptical of the potential for change via the route of representative or electoral politics) for different kinds of activity around the event. The first has mostly been signed by individuals. Signatories include a number of prominent leftists such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and calls for ‘presence rather than protest at the inauguration’. It is titled, An open letter to those seeking to build a world from below, in which many worlds are possible, and is addressed to ‘all anarchists, horizontals, autonomists, anti-capitalists, anti-authoritarians and others organizing a world from below’. The letter reads,

‘As people striving toward a nonhierarchical society, yes, we can - and should - be rigorously critical of Barack Obama. It goes without saying that we want a world without presidents; we want worlds of our own constituting via directly democratic structures, not states. But not all heads of state are alike, and if we fail to recognize both the historical meaning and power of this particular moment, we will ensure our own irrelevance.

‘We can - and should - also be in critical solidarity with people who have been violently marginalized, who see in the Obama campaign the possibility of their own agency. The inauguration affords a unique space for us to stand with a diverse group of activists inspired by Obama, many new to political organizing, even as we maintain our views on the limits of change from above.’

The proposal which the call issues is to make visible movements, struggles and forms of collective organization which aspire towards ‘better approximations of freedom’.

The entire text, along with the full list of signatories can be found here.

The second comes from a coalition primarily composed of anarchist organizations. It focuses less on the inauguration as a moment symbolic of successful (albeit ongoing) struggles against racism, and more on the Office of the President as a symbol of oppression. Several of Obama’s specific policies are singled out for criticism – including his plans to intensify the war in Afghanistan and invest in ‘clean’ coal – before stating,

‘With the press declaring Obama the most beloved president in recent history, the strategic move is to expose the root of our problems - not in any one president, but in the system that produces presidents.’

This second call, which can also be read in full here, states,

‘Rather than converging on the inaugural route, we’ll bring resistance to the doorsteps of the banks, trade ministers, and corporate elite. Come dressed in festive attire, ready to party.’

I would imagine that the various activities planned for the day will be reported on at Indymedia.

Obama’s decision to invite controversial pastor Rick Warren, a strong supporter of Proposition 8 which overturned the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, to deliver the invocation at the ceremony drew heavy criticism in December. Whether or not protests will take place at the inauguration itself, beyond a small number of albeit prominent boycotts by individuals, is still unclear.

CNN Journalist as Surgeon General?

2009-01-07T04:56:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

CNN’s medical correspondent and neurosurgeon Dr. Sanjay Gupta has reportedly been offered the job of Surgeon General. The New York Times wrote,

‘While the post of surgeon general is not cabinet-level, it can certainly be high profile, as several previous occupants of the position have learned.

‘For example Joycelyn Elders, who served as the 15th surgeon general of the U.S. under President Bill Clinton, was criticized for arguing about the legalization of some drugs as well as distributing contraceptives in schools. Mr. Clinton, at the time, said Dr. Elder had simply been misunderstood.’

The Huffington Post said,

‘Having such a well-known TV personality could bring the surgeon general attention not seen since C. Everett Koop help [a typo, the Post obviously mean 'held'] the position under President Ronald Reagan. Koop is best known for pushing to make AIDS a public health issue rather than a moral issue, and Reagan faced pressure to fire him. Koop has said Reagan never interfered.’

CNN’s own coverage of the news is online here. Dr. Gupta has not officially accepted the position, but according to this CNN video he is expected to do so in the next couple of days.

New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman here raises the debate which took place between Dr. Gupta and film-maker Michael Moore, related to his film Sicko criticising the health care system in the US. The video below features a debate on Larry King Live between Dr. Gupta and Moore over the facts and statistics used in the film.

Johnathan Stein, writing for Mother Jones’ ‘Blue Marble’ environment and health blog, is happy with the prospect of Dr. Gupta as Surgeon General. Over on the Daily Kos, a debate - with well over 550 postings so far - is currently taking place over the news.

Responses to CIA Director Announcement

2009-01-06T09:03:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Robert Dreyfuss, a contributing editor at the Nation who runs the blog 'The Dreyfuss Report', has a piece on the appointment of Panetta as CIA Director.

Panetta wins no points from Dreyfuss for his opposition to torture - he paraphrases Dick Cheney's comments on waterboarding saying this should be 'a no-brainer'. He argues,

'Panetta is a relentless centrist and a conciliator. He's one more cog in the center-right national security apparatus that Obama is patiently assembling. Which raises another very important issue: Is Panetta the one to stand up and fight for civilian control of the intelligence community? Of course not. His boss, it appears, will he Admiral Dennis Blair, yet another top military man appointed to run the U.S. intelligence community as head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Now the very office of the DNI is a useless post, and the entire office ought to be abolished by Obama on Day One. Who needs it? It was created by Congress, with President Bush's support, as part of the helter-skelter intelligence reorganization that also saw the creation of several other vast, unneeded agencies: the Northern Command, the Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center, and others. Obama should get rid of all of them. In the meantime, by appointing Blair, a man deeply entangled in the military-industrial complex, Obama is guaranteeing that the CIA and the other fifteen or so agencies that comprise the "community" will be ever beholden to the Pentagon, which already absorbs something like 80 percent of the intelligence budget.

'The Panetta appointment is doomed. I give him a year, before he gives up over there. He's no match for the hardheaded spooks who run the place, and he's no match for the military brass who are elbowing their way to more and more control of intelligence spending and priorities.'

David Corn, on the 'MoJo' blog at Mother Jones, is more enthusiastic. Drum celebrates Panetta's opposition to torture (including waterboarding), his criticism of the Iraq war through his involvement in the Iraq Study Group, his attempt to cut intelligence funding to the CIA as Clinton's budget chief, and his voting in favour of more congressional oversight of covert operations in 1990. He concludes,

'This appointment certainly has the potential to spark opposition from inside and outside the agency. But if Panetta manages to make it to Langley without much fuss, that would indeed signal real change in Washington.'

According to many accounts (Politico, New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post) Democrats are similarly split in their response to the announcement.

Harper's Index Bush Retrospective

2009-01-06T07:27:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

I imagine that like many other subscribers to Harper's magazine, the first thing I do when it drops through my letter box is turn to the 'Harper's Index'. It's a list of often surprising and sometimes highly obscure statistics, usually arranged in a way that builds up dramatic effect or illustrates ironies. The feature appears in every issue of the magazine, and the January 2009 edition is dedicated to a retrospective look at the Bush era. Here are a few highlights:

'Minimum number of Bush appointees who have regulated industries they used to represent as lobbyists: 98'
'Number of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and North African men detained in the U.S. in the eight weeks after 9/11: 1,182'
'Number of them ever charged with a terrorism-related crime: 0'
'Number charged with an immigration violation: 762'
'Estimated total calories members of Congress burned giving Bush's 2002 State of the Union standing ovations: 22,000'
'Percentage of the amendments in the Bill of Rights that are violated by the USA PATRIOT Act, according to the ACLU: 50'
'Estimated number of U.S. intelligence reports on Iraq that were based on information from a single defector: 100'
'Number of times the defector had ever been interviewed by U.S. intelligence agents: 0'
'Factor by which an Iraqi in 2006 was more likely to die than in the last year of the Saddam regime: 3.6'
'Factor by which the cause of death was more likely to be violence: 120'
'Portion of Baghdad residents in 2007 who had a family member or friend wounded or killed since 2003: 3/4'

CIA and Justice Dept Appointments

2009-01-06T03:50:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Obama yesterday made official some of the last remaining high-profile nominations before his inauguration on January 20. Former Democratic Congressman and Clinton-era White House Chief of Staff, Leon E. Panetta was named CIA Director. Panetta, who according to the New York Times’ ‘Caucus’ blog, linked to above, has little experience in the worlds of intelligence or counter-terrorism, will occupy the post earlier expected to be held by John Brennan. Brennan was forced to withdraw his name from consideration after concerns were raised over his association with certain interrogation methods.

The Times article argued,

‘Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.’

A lengthy biographical article about Panetta can be found on the website of the Panetta Institute, of which he is Director.

The announcement of four of the top Justice Department jobs, all of which will require Senate confirmation, also saw the nomination of individuals who had served in the Clinton administration. A separate article, elsewhere on the New York Times' 'Caucus' blog said,

‘The records and public statements of the four nominees named by Mr. Obama suggest a sharp break from the legal policies of the past eight years in a number of key areas, including the detention, interrogation and surveillance of terrorism suspects.’

Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law school professor, is to be nominated to run the Office of Legal Counsel. David Ogden, a law firm partner and earlier senior official in the Clinton Justice Department, will be nominated Deputy Attorney General. The Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, who served as a legal advisor and associate counsel during the Clinton administration will be nominated as Solicitor General. She will, according the Times,

‘argue the administration’s positions on a number of critical issues before the Supreme Court, from the detention of enemy combatants to voting rights and religious displays.’

Tom Perelli will be nominated as Associate Attorney General. Perrelli is a Managing Partner at the Jenny & Block law firm where he is described as having regularly represented the recording industry 'in cutting-edge intellectual property, technology, and anti-piracy litigation.'

The latter of the two Times articles mentioned above came in for criticism from Harper's magazine's excellent blogger, Scott Horton. Horton took the piece, it's author Eric Lichtblau, and the paper's editors to task for describing the Office of Legal Counsel as having become controversial during the Bush administration 'because of its legal defense of practices bordering on torture'. Horton wrote,

'Got that? John Yoo and Steven Bradbury were defending practices “bordering on torture.” We’re talking about waterboarding, hypothermia, long-time standing, the use of psychotropic drugs and burying people in a box for prolonged periods, among other things.

'Dear Times editors: read your own pages. When Russia used the practice of stoika in the Stalin era, you called it “torture.” It is. Why does it become “bordering on torture” when the Bush Administration uses it? When the Nazis used the practice of Pfahlbinden during World War II, you called it “torture.” So when Bush uses it, suddenly it becomes “bordering on torture”? By consciously softening your language, you are allowing those who introduced torture to escape the opprobrium that is their due. Moreover, you are enabling torture. Your readers deserve better.'

Secretary of Commerce Nominee Withdraws

2009-01-05T05:01:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Bill Richardson, nominated by Obama on December 3 as Secretary of Commerce, has pulled out of the post amidst an investigation into his business dealings. Like many other senior positions, Richardson's appointment would have required confirmation by the Senate.

Responses Round-Up to Labor Secretary Announcement

2009-01-05T04:24:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

As remarked in an earlier post, initial left/liberal/progressive responses to the announcement on December 18 of Hilda Solis as Obama's designate for Labor Secretary have generally been extremely enthusiastic. Here is a little round up...

John Nichols has a piece on the Nation website singing her praises here. On AlterNet.org, Van Jones, the Executive Director of the Ella Baker Centre for Human Rights, described the pick as 'great' and a demonstration of Obama's commitment to the creation of 'green jobs'. Johnathan Tasini, Executive Director of the Labor Research Association, said,

'I think it's a great pick. Solis is 100 percent in labor's camp, and she won't need training wheels to get up-to-speed. What we don't know yet is how big a voice she will have when it comes to going toe-to-toe with the Commerce, Treasury and other Administration voices for business. And a lot will depend on who she brings in below her to actually run the show...'

All the major trade unions seem to be very pleased. There is a celebratory statement by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), posted to the organisation's blog here. Chair of the Change to Win federation of unions, Anna Burger, released the following statement,

'Change to Win and its affiliated unions would welcome the appointment of Congresswoman Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, and would be excited to work with her to help restore the economy, rebuild the middle class and renew the American Dream. She would make the Labor Department an agency that once again protects and promotes the well-being of America’s working men and women. President-elect Obama promised to make government work for working Americans and the appointment of Hilda Solis would make that promise real.

'Solis has a life-long record as an advocate and activist for the cause and concerns of working Americans. She has fought to provide working families with a safe workplace, a healthy environment, a decent standard of living, affordable health care and equal opportunity. Congresswoman Solis does not just vote on behalf of workers, she is their unwavering and tireless voice. She has one of the strongest pro-worker voting records in Congress and is a sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act.

'She has never forgotten where she comes from, and how she got to where she is today.

'As she said in support of the Employee Free Choice Act:

'"When union workers earn higher wages to support their families...It helps to provide a vibrant economy. It helps send their children, like me, a daughter of immigrants and a union household to college and eventually run for office. This is the American dream, and we should help realize that dream by supporting workers."'

John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, expressed similar enthusiasm, according to the union's blog. The AFL-CIO piece also cites Carl Pope, President of the environmental NGO the Sierra Club as saying,

'We can think of no better person to help President-elect Obama implement his plans for an economic recovery fueled by the creation of millions of new green jobs. Hilda Solis also understands that green jobs must also be good jobs and has worked to make sure that the clean-energy economy is one that lifts up all workers.'

Recovery Plans

2009-01-05T04:02:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

A couple of days ago, in his weekly video address to the nation, Obama delivered his most concrete statement so far on his plans for economic recovery.

In the January 3rd address, the president-elect promised to create 3 million new jobs, with 80% of those in the private sector. He pledged to double investment in renewable energy and committed funds to developing infrastructure - especially roads, bridges and schools. New classrooms, laboratories and libraries were promised, as was the updating and computerisation of the health care system. Finally, he pledged 'direct tax relief' to 95% of American workers.

Both the video and the full text of Obama's statement are here. There is an article in today's New York Times taking a look at some of the likely motivations behind the tax relief, as well as a more detailed examination of the recovery plan thus far.

Still No Word From Obama on Gaza Conflict

2009-01-03T14:49:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Obama's local paper (at least until he moves to Washington - tomorrow apparently!), the Chicago Tribune, are running an article noting the president-elect's increasingly deafening silence on the escalating conflict in Gaza.

The paper remarks that while Obama has been keen to stress there is 'only one President at a time' and, as such, he will not be commenting on foreign policy, he has previously made several exceptions. Precisely what difference an Obama statement would make at this time, however, is acknowledged by the article as somewhat of an unknown quantity.

The fall out from (or continuation of) the current conflict will likely be one of the first issues to be addressed once Obama is inaugurated on January 20. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will be playing a key role here.

Climate Policy Proposals to Obama

2009-01-02T08:53:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor at New York's Columbia University, has written to Obama (in fact, the Obamas) criticising current climate change policy and making a number of proposals. The lengthy letter, which is available in full - with a preface - here, proposes:

A moratorium on and phase-out of coal plants unable to capture and store carbon dioxide.
Increasing the cost of carbon emissions through a carbon tax. The tax suggested is described by Hansen as 'progressive', with those reducing their carbon footprint more than average making money - and those with bigger cars and houses paying higher taxes.
And finally, research and development investment in 4th generation nuclear power stations said to partly run on nuclear waste, as well as producing less waste with a lower half-life.

Cuba's Return

2009-01-02T05:17:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Cuba, Immanuel Wallerstein noted in a January 1 comment article, is back. Specifically, at a series of December meetings amongst Latin American heads of state (at which Columbia, El Salvador and Peru were notable in their absence) the country was admitted into the Grupo de Río forum. Wallerstein explains that the meetings, all of which took place in Brazil, also involved an agreement to establish a South American Defense Council and a significant improvement in the relations between Mexico and Cuba.

The timing of the meetings, one of which also involved a number of Caribbean presidents, is said to be no accident, coming as it does a few months ahead of the Summit of the Americas meeting scheduled for April in Trinidad. This meeting will include Canada and the US and exclude Cuba. 'Presumably,' Wallerstein explained,

'Obama will be faced there with the arguments and proposals put forward at the meeting in Brazil. The first is to include Cuba by revoking its suspension from the Organization of American States. Lula stated that, in order to improve the relations of Cuba and the United States, it is the United States that must take the first step by lifting the embargo. A second is to review outstanding national debts. Ecuador has already announced a moratorium on further debt payments, saying that, after paying the debt for 28 years, it still owes the same amount - a "dismal story" said President Correa.

'Castro said he is ready for direct talks with Obama. "If he wants to have a discussion, we will. It's increasingly difficult to isolate Cuba." Lula actually went further in his challenge to Obama. He said that his presidency would become truly historic only when he lifts the Cuban blockade. In the meantime, what used to be the backyard of the United States - Latin America - is increasingly open to other world powers. Russia, China, and Iran have all increased their role in Latin America in significant ways.'

In a piece in today's Guardian, former Latin America correspondent Richard Gott has a piece arguing that an Obama visit to Havana - 50 years after the Cuban revolution - would be 'an event as spectacular as that moment 50 years ago when Fidel and Guevara acknowledged the plaudits of the crowd: the dawn of hope.'

Blogging Slow Down

2008-12-23T14:55:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

Between now and the New Year, I'll be taking a bit of a break from the blog. Posts will be slightly less regular than has been the case between the election and now. More regular posting, running up to inauguration day on January 20, will recommence around January 5.

David Plouffe Interview

2008-12-23T14:11:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The business magazine Portfolio has a fairly rare interview with Obama's primary and presidential election campaign manager, David Plouffe.

In the interview, he touches on the battles against Clinton and McCain; the challenges posed by Reverend Wright-gate; the relative weight they placed on the 'ground campaign' as opposed to advertising buys; what it is which set the Obama campaign apart; and his own book plans.

The interview can be found here.

Foreign Policy Will Remain Largely Unchanged, Claims Rice

2008-12-22T09:49:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The FT ran a short article yesterday quoting the outgoing Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, as saying that Obama's foreign policy - on Israel-Palestine and North Korea, as well as Iran's nuclear programme - would be similar to that of the Bush administration's. She is quoted as saying,

'The reason why there might be some elements of continuity is that what we’ve tried to do is to arrange or organise international groupings that can first manage and then resolve these very difficult problems in a multilateral way.'

Meanwhile, John Nichols at the Nation today criticised the nomination of 'free-trade absolutist' Ron Kirk as US Trade Representative over Xavier Becerra. Becerra is described as 'one of the most consistently progressive members of the House.'

Nichols argues that Becerra,

'had backed some trade deals in the past, but in recent years he had emerged as a savvy critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the "Fast-Track" model for negotiating new trade deals. In particular, he had been outspoken with regard to the need to include guarantees of protection for union organizers in new agreements with countries such as Colombia.

'Becerra's commitment to human rights and labor rights troubled business interests, and they made their concerns known to the Obama camp.'

Obama Announces Top Scientific Advisors

2008-12-21T10:21:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

The Observer today heralded Barack Obama's appointment of his most senior scientific advisors a 'revolution on climate change'.

Obama's announcement came during his weekly YouTube address - oft lauded as the 21st Century version of FDR's radio addresses to the nation during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The Huffington Post reported,

'John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government action. Holdren will become Obama's science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lubchenco will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees ocean and atmospheric studies and does much of the government's research on global warming.

Holdren also will direct the president's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Joining him as co-chairs will be Nobel Prize-winning scientist Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research.'

The New York Times commented,

'Like Steven Chu, the energy secretary-designate, Drs. Holdren and Lubchenco advocate mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, which the Bush administration opposed. Both served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Holdren said last year that the world needed to undertake “a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.”'

Labour Secretary Announced

2008-12-19T05:41:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

Obama's choice for Labour Secretary was yesterday announced as Democratic Congresswoman Hilda Solis. The immediate response from organised labour has been tremendously positive. The following article at the Huffington Post contains numerous links to statements of support from labour organisations, including the Service Employees International Union and Change to Win.

What's the Rick Warren Fuss All About?

2008-12-18T06:20:00.001-08:00

By Ben Trott

Objections to Rick Warren's invitation to direct the invocation at the inauguration are getting louder and louder. See the following articles for an overview of what is wrong with Warren here and here.

To summarise, though, here are a few of the most prominent objections to have been raised so far:

He was a prominent proponent of Proposition 8, attached to the November 4 ballot in California overturning the right to same-sex marriage
He refers to those who are pro-choice as 'Holocaust deniers', and compared efforts towards abortion reduction (rather than abolition) to 'Schindler's list'
He does not believe in evolution and thinks dinosaurs and humans inhabited the Earth (which he believes is only a few thousand years old) at the same time
He has said that the only difference between himself and Focus on the Family radio producer James Dobson is one of tone (for an overview of some of Dobson's views, see the following Wikipedia entry)

Journalist and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn has a powerful piece on this issue at the Huffington Post. He explains that he has been hesitant to criticise Obama so far, despite some problematic choices made in his nominations for cabinet posts, but the news that Warren will deliver the invocation is 'simply an outrage.'

LGBT Protests Over Obama's Invocation Choice

2008-12-18T03:34:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

There has been widespread concern amongst and protest from LGBT groups regarding Obama's decision for evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his January inauguration.

The Guardian report that,

'Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life and pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, was an outspoken proponent of a ballot measure [i.e. Proposition 8] to rescind the right of California same-sex couples to wed, and has compared homosexuality to incest and paedophilia.'

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post wrote of the first real rift emerging between Obama and progressives around this issue.

'Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, the media has been pining to write a story about liberal dissatisfaction with his transition efforts. By and large, the meme has been blown out of proportion, as the press overestimated how divisive Obama's cabinet choices were for progressives.

'The press may now have its conflict moment. And it comes in the form of the spiritual leader chosen to launch Obama's inauguration.'

The LGBT organisation, Human Rights Campaign's President Joe Solmonese wrote the following open letter to Obama.

Dear President-elect Obama -

Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, “there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it's a lie today.

Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on. Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans, many of whom also share a strong tradition of religion and faith.

We have been moved by your calls to religious leaders to own up to the homophobia and racism that has stood in the way of combating HIV and AIDS in this country. And that you have publicly called on religious leaders to open their hearts to their LGBT family members, neighbors and friends.

But in this case, we feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination. Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement.

Sincerely,

Joe Solmonese
President
Human Rights Campaign

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

Chavez Expects Improvement in Venezuelan-US Relations Likely

2008-12-18T03:27:00.000-08:00

By Ben Trott

There is an article on the Venezuelanalysis.com blog by Erik Sperling reporting on Hugo Chavez's cautious optimism that relations between Venezuela and the US will improve with Obama as President and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.