Three suggested areas for actions soon: absolute poverty, SCOTUS, L

[cloudythescribbler]

These are three very timely issues. I know there may not be a consensus about Judith Miller, although there ought to be -- as the posting below argues. This issue consensus is independent of whether you like her or not.
I) ISSUE OF ABSOLUTE POVERTY

On absolute poverty, most of us would agree that this holocaust needs to end, that the G8 did not do enough, and that those concerned about the issue should mobilize politically. As a recent post I put up at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1622487

discusses, the ONE campaign is seeking at least partial credit for what they describe as "an unprecedented deal to cancel debts and double aid to Africa". The notion of the concerts merely directing a statement to the G8holes and then being satisfied with the results is a travesty. These stars need to raise money like LIVE AIDS did BUT ... put at least half of that money into seed money to organize a door-to-door canvassing organization that mobilizes citizens into active chapters as well as collecting further donations for political lobbying. Anything less is simply a betrayal of the issue. The issue of poverty isn't going away, but this G8/Live 8 opportunity is. If we write letters to the ONE campaign, and the Live 8 organizers, as well as others, AND DU issues a press release, this could really make quite a news story. This action should be done within the next TWO WEEKS, as a DU action.

-------------------------------------

II) ISSUE OF SCOTUS

I have elsewhere posted suggestions for talking points about RW jurisprudence and the Supreme Court nominations. Here is a recent letter to the editor of the NY Times:

To the editor:

Re: "The Judge is an Activist. Maybe." (letters, July 10).

I read with bemusement the tortured efforts of a half-dozen rightwingers, including lawyers and legal scholars, speciously struggling to justify the exposed hypocrisy of their cherished ideology. All six letters represented attempts to refute hard evidence that the rightwing of a conservative Court was more likely than its liberals to strike down as unconstitutional laws passed by a Republican Congress!

In particular, their line that the rightwing has greater respect for the Constitution, rather than for the preferences of Congress, does not withstand historical scrutiny. One major example should suffice: the Supreme Court, in an era of their dogged overt opposition to the functioning of the 14th Amendment, completely rewrote the meaning of the 11th Amendment in Hans v. Louisiana (1891) for that purpose.
The doctrine of Hans, largely blocking federal jurisdiction over state governments based on subject matter, had no basis whatsoever in the text, legislative intent, or previous caselaw of the 11th Amendment. Yet, as Hans is an obstacle to enforcement of the 14th Amendment, it is useful to the agenda of the right. To this day, rightwingers uphold this noxious fraud vigorously, while in the 1980s, a powerful coalition of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Stevens and Blackmun nearly overturned it.

Furthermore, the invocation of 'individual liberty' and state autonomy are mere "principles of convenience" discarded when inconvenient; the rhetoric of rightwing judicial philosophy takes partisan agenda and ideological predeliction and tries to cloak it as something grander than itself.

SCOTUS is an issue we should address within the next MONTH AT MOST
-----------------------------------------
III) ISSUE OF LONDON TERRORIST ATTACK

I am not entirely sure what to do in response to London, but we should not ignore it. UFPJ has written a memo on their response, and it is a good starting point for some talking points on the issue. This is something to discuss and have as an action within the next two weeks

-----------------
IV) DISCUSSING ISSUE OF JUDITH MILLER -- STRAIGHTENING OUT CONFUSION AMONG OUR OWN RANKS

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/124035/953

If we could straighten out some confusion about Judith Miller, then that action would be timely soon also, but DU shouldn't pursue it if we are seriously divided on the question.
Here are some of my comments from TPM Cafe:

Many on left ass-backwards about Miller
By cloudy
From: Media Table
On the left, many suggest that Miller should sing, or alternatively that she's tainted, and her case not worth championing. This is to help them remove their heads from their asses.

Judith Miller's refusal to expose sources is NOT about the specifics of this case. It is about the right of the press to protect their sources. Even if it were some hack from FOX, the issue would be the same essential one -- are we going to have the flow of information from 'unnamed' sources to the press or not.
Those who don't see this are either not authentically progressive or are authentically completely confused.



Jul 13, 2005 -- 12:40:35 PM EST

The issue is not who Miller is covering for. People are too quick to think of gangs and mafiosi taking the fall. It is unlikely she hasany information that is going to significantly change the facts on the ground. And frankly, they are ALL a bunch of worthless
bast***s, from W on down, so one more or less, replaced by another W Bush choice, won't do anything. What difference did it make when Erlichman resigned? Or Colson? It was still a corrupt
Administration, and even the VP that replaced Nixon then pardoned him.




The moral of the story is -- if the Administration is a pile of
excrement, rearranging the turds won't change things.


Now, as for Miller, the principle is not which brand of toilet paper
she is using. The issue is that the press not be compelled to
divulge sources. The particulars of this or just about any case are
less important than the fact that sources in general can be confident that they will remain anonymous, so that information about the system will be available to the public.

It's like an issue of legal precedent. The liberals on the court didn't vote through the precedent in the case that set the rule on incitement to violence as illegal speech very strictly because they LIKED the person involved (the KKK) but because the principle was important. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund didn't submit
an amicus brief in support of a plaintiff in a case against the U of Florida alleging "reverse discrimination against whites" on the issue of 11th Amendment immunity because they liked the plaintiff or even the substance of that case, but because the 11th Amendment issue (shielding state governments from 14th Amendment suits in FEDERAL court) was important, regardless of the specific context.

The Miller case is of that kind. ANY time you make a journalist reveal their sources, whether it is in the famous CBS case where the journalist in question said: "It is not that I won't comply -- I CAN'T comply", or even if it were Rush Limbaugh, that's not the issue. The issue is the state compelling the press to reveal their sources, striking in practice at the functional heart of freedom of the press in this country -- AND THAT IS A PIVOTAL ISSUE FOR THOSE OPPOSING IMPERIALISM. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

You can't defend democracy against imperialism nearly as effectivelywithout that freedom of the press. And that kind of a blow tofreedom of the press is an encroachment of the imperialist stateagainst citizens being able to hold them up to the light that we urgently need, and folks, things are NOT getting better in this area. In case you hadn't noticed, in the race betweeen imperialism and democracy in America AND IT IS A MULTIPLICATIVE Zero Sum Game, the imperialists are winning, and this is a crucial battle even though the NY Times, with its infatuation with globalization, may indeed themselves be wrong on many many issues.



And just as you don't have to be Jewish to like Levy's, you don't have to be a left progressive not to see the problem here. This is a basic conflict between the Tory philosophy of government (don't expose us, we'll expose you) and a Constitutionalist view (those in power need more scrutiny and accountability to the public, not less). If you are on the other side of that question, please COME OUT AND SCREAM IT.
But don't pretend that the Judith Miller case is non-progressive or not important TO progressives.

[Ksec]

1. poverty in the US is ignored by most

Its out here and its becoming bigger by the day. My area is full of people who cant buy food or pay bills. Its vulgar that the richest nation on earth has such a track record.

[cloudythescribbler]

2. having lived in a homeless shelter 5 1/2 years, I know what you mean