Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
With the election over, it's time to move on to new things, and the folks at the Campaign for America's Future have asked me to do some writing about Social Security, which sounds like some big fun, so here we are.
We're going to start with some reasonably simple stuff today, just to get your feet wet; by the time we get a few stories down the road there will be some complicated economic analysis to work through-but let's begin today by looking a bit south.
Those who support privatizing Social Security in this country often point to Chile as an example we could follow, and that seems like a good place to get the conversation going...so set your personal WayBack Machine to Santiago, May, 1981, and let's see what we can learn.
That's what it boils down to. Our national security interests depend on the telecom corporations snitching on the customers they're supposed to serve, while "private security guards" make an example in Iraq of what happens to people who don't behave.
While the electronic home invasions by the telecommunications industry on behalf of the federal government has finally gotten the people to sit up and take notice (everybody knows that people don't need immunity from prosecution, if they've done nothing wrong), it almost looks like Senator Chris Dodd holds the key in his hand to a much bigger story.
Let me be clear. I am unalterably opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and to the establishment there of U.S. military bases as part of the missile defense shield, a radar early warning system, or routine air patrols of the region. And, of course, I'm horrified that the United States is now responsible for over a million dead Iraqis and the more than four million who have fled their homes because of the continual aerial bombardment and civil strife that the U.S. presence has prompted.
Moreover, while the Republican charges that all of this was started during the administration of Bill Clinton aren't accurate in the sense that what was planned by the Pentagon under his aegis did not have to be carried out, the facts are that it was. And it was for this reason that John Kerry was not able to be honest about the invasion of Iraq in 2004 and why Hillary Clinton can't disavow her support, either in 2002 or now.
Which is why I say, Fat Chance about the prospect of Bill Clinton somehow restoring the image of the U.S. as is being reported from London.
