RFK's 1968 Gun Control Speech in Roseburg, Oregon

by Janet Ritz

RFK on the campaign trail
in Oregon, 1968

In May 25, 1968, ten days before he would be assassinated in California, democratic candidate, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, called for gun control in Roseburg, Oregon, the site of this country's latest school massacre.

The 1968 British television news magazine, 24 hours, hosted by Cliff Michelmore, gave context to RFK's speech on gun control and reported how he was heckled in Roseburg by protestors who held signs that read: "Protect your right to keep and bear arms." (This was the NRA slogan that earned ridicule from gun control advocates with signs in response that read: Protect your right to keep and arm bears").

"Ever since his brother's death," Michelmore explained, "Robert Kennedy and all his family have been particularly aware of the violence of American society and the ease with which Americans obtain guns."

An excerpt from the 24 Hours program:

Walter Cronkite reported on the same speech in his nightly news broadcast where RFK highlighted the lack of controls on guns purchased through mail order. 

Read more→

Tunisia's Riots: A warning to regimes in the Middle East

by Janet Ritz

If anyone doubts the connection between the economy, the climate and the risk to existing autocratic regimes, they need only look to the protests in Tunisia that began over unemployment, rising food prices and anger at oppression.

The unrest in Tunisia has exploded into a national crisis that is serving as a warning to autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East. The lack of resources have acted as a magnifying lens upon the lack of parity under these regimes. The paradigm, as a result, is changing. People are not so easily distracted toward foreign enemies when their own government turns on their starving population who cannot afford the rising cost of food.

That's what has been happening in Tunisia, where as many as 60 people have died in protests that have grown in their size and determination. Continued..

[ [1] 2 ] read more and link to video →

Obama's Push-Back Against China Is Bitter Medicine

by Sam Sedaei

For the past number of years, the prevailing view in foreign policy circles in Washington has been that China's economic growth of 9%, along with the recent economic recession that hit the United States, has shifted the balance of Sino-U.S. relations in China's favor. During a recent conversation I had with David Bosco, the author of Five to Rule Them All, he pointed out that while for most of the Cold War and twenty-first century, the Soviet Union -- and then Russia -- led the efforts to challenge Western authority on the international stage, China has been becoming the leading voice of opposition in the United Nations Security Council in recent years.

And ever since President Obama's inauguration, China has been especially uncooperative on a number of global issues. Kenneth Lieberthal -- director of Brookings Institution's China Center in Washington -- says such testy relations in the first year of American administrations have historic precedence as the two countries are more willing to test each other. Nonetheless, China has shown to be particularly resistant to respond positively to Obama's international charm offensive. 

Two of those major issues have been climate change and Iran. China sent a low level diplomat to negotiate with President Obama during the Copenhagen Conference on climate change in 2009 and unilaterally ensured the conference's minimal success by resisting enforcement mechanisms for any agreement on carbon emissions. And, as the military rulers in Iran proceed with horrific human rights crimes and lack of cooperation to address concerns about their nuclear program, China has shown unwilling to cooperate on sanctions on Sepah-e Pasdaran, also known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  Continued...

[1][2] read more...

2010 Scenarios - Which country do you want first?

by Janet Ritz

Have you thought about what America will be like two years into the next administration?

Here are four scenarios:

First scenario - McCain:

It is 2010. President McCain has fired the head of the SEC, FEC, FCC, SIPC (note spelling)... and has formed the M.F.I. Commission to study the collapsed economy under Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm, while Saudi Arabia and Dubai (where Dick Cheney is living out his retirement) have matched China, India and Iraq in owning our over thirty-three trillion dollar national debt.

We're in proxy wars with Russia and in a bomb, bomb, bomb war with Iran.

Out-of-work parents say goodbye to their enlisted sons and daughters.

President McCain adds more cars to the thirteen(?) he currently owns.

Ditto on the houses.

A safe education is available only for the home-schooled or vouchered.

Health care becomes more out of reach to those who can't afford it.

Drilling is everywhere but ANWR and, yet, oil is over $200 a barrel.

Alternative fuels legislation receives lip-service but little effective support.

There are no salmon.

Tucker Bounds becomes Press Secretary. Doug Holtz-Eakin is the new CEO of Blackberry.

Questions about policies are met with blame and obfuscation.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps.

But what if it's not?

Second scenario - McCain:

It is 2010. President John McCain defies his right wing and lobbyist backers and tries to do the right thing, but receives no support from a partisan congress or from the right wingers and lobbyists he's betrayed.

See above for the rest.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps.

But what if it's not?


Third scenario - Palin:

It is 2010. Out-of-work parents say goodbye to their sons and daughters on their way to the trenches of Iran and Russia, while President Palin (sworn into office in 2009 after President McCain's untimely demise) and President Ahmedinejab rave about their respective end-times.

Social Security and Medicare are discontinued. Health care is unattainable.

Tent cities spring up in city parks. National parks are buzzed by aerial hunters.

Hurricanes wipe out the Gulf coast, the oceans have become one big dead zone with only lionfish and jellyfish, America's beaches are covered with garbage; the Midwest is a permanent flood zone (between tornadoes), cities, chokingly polluted, are filled with paranoid citizens with gun permits, new prisons are the only new home construction, twenty-five percent of endangered species have passed the tipping point to extinction, though not on any government list, and Saudi Arabia and Dubai (where Dick Cheney is living out his retirement) have matched China, India and Iraq in owning our over thirty-three trillion dollar national debt.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps.

But what if it's not?


Fouth scenario - Obama:

It is 2010. President Barack Obama has formed a coalition with our (once again) allies to put pressure on Iran to belly up to the diplomacy bar. Joe Biden and Bill Clinton are dispatched to speak with world leaders who respect them.

A worldwide coalition has formed to combat the root causes of terrorism and shore up failing states.

Bipartisan government programs, pushed through by a Democratic majority in both houses, are instituted to forestall foreclosures while forcing corporate responsibility. Wall Street and Main Street (slowly) recover.

The homeless, rather than being beaten up by unattended teens, are ushered into community programs, as are unattended teens. Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

Older, unhappy women as swing voters

by Janet Ritz

The AARP's Divided We Fail initiative released a survey today of swing voters in battleground states; those identified as older, lower income, mostly white women who said their decision would be based, primarily, upon the economy. Not a surprise, considering the state of same, but one that bears further scrutiny following another survey; this one reported by USA Today and ABC news which stated older women were unhappier than their male counterparts:

Women start out as happy young adults but by midlife wind up the sadder sex, says a new study on satisfaction related to financial circumstances and family life, which past research has shown play a significant role in well-being and happiness.

The ABC report showed a graph that started with men and women in their 20's, with women the happier of the two sexes and men working on it -- until age 48 when the lines cross as women take a downward slide into unhappiness and men find themselves well situated.

What is this about?

The answer provides a clue to the support for Hillary Clinton within the same demographic: the way our society is structured, the possibility that a women of a certain age and (at least at birth) background might finally be able to dictate policy that would include some consideration of their circumstances:

Early in adult life, women are more likely than men to fulfill their aspirations for material goods and family life, but later, they may be divorced or separated and less financially secure. Meanwhile, men's finances and family life improve, making them "the happier of the two genders," the study says.

The societal support system for these women becomes a pulled-out rug that threatens to leave them behind after age 48. If they are not with a man, they are at risk for poverty which increases the pressure upon these women to stay with their men. But that is no panacea. If they do stay, many of these women are at increased risk of becoming a caretaker and/or beholden to a man in a position of power, that, dependent upon his character, who has the opportunity to misuse that power awarded him by society.

No wonder the men surveyed were happier.

The AARP survey concluded that the older white women in the battleground states they approached placed the economy as their preeminent issue felt that neither candidate was addressing their concerns.

"Undecided swing voters are older women, focused domestically on the economy and health care and do not feel that either candidate is adequately addressing these issues," said AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond.

The polling found that 60 percent of swing voters say they are interested in learning more about the candidates' positions on the issues that matter most to them. Perhaps most importantly, the research indicates that nearly all swing voters (94%) in the six key states agree that health care and financial security are too big for any one candidate or party to fix.

As societal imbalances can produce conflict within the groups being oppressed, a consequence of the divide and conquer nature of our trickle-down economics that don't (trickle down), it is possible that these women could end up voting against their own interests with a McCain who, at least, culturally speaks their language, as opposed to an Obama, who does not seem to be speaking to them at all.

What does Senator Obama have to do to reach these women? Continued...

In Defense of Marriage

by Sherman Yellen

Last week someone asked me as a long married man what I thought of gay marriage. I said I was all for it; it was straight marriage I sometimes have my doubts about. I was joking, but like most jokes there was a kernel of truth in it. With the rate of divorce in this country at a record high level I wonder how the right wing keeps their self-righteous rhetoric going on the sacredness of traditional marriage, and why it feels so threatened by gay people who want the ceremony, the respect, and the legal rights of marriage. The denial of those rights seems outrageous in any country that considers itself a civil society. And there is the embarrassing fact that Republican John McCain, Libertarian Bob Barr, and half the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are divorced or serial adulterers, not counting those defenders of marriage who are lusting after Senate pages, and engaging in toilet booth toe tickles. Yes, I do believe in defending marriage but not by setting up walls of discriminatory law to prevent others from enjoying its privileges, its joys, and its struggles.

A few years back when many people mocked or condemned Hillary Clinton for staying married to Bill after the Monica mess, I thought it was among her bravest decisions. She would not let scandal or humiliation, a relentlessly prurient press, or a husband who was half a genius and half a jerk force her to end a marriage that for all its flaws meant a great deal to her and to her daughter. There was a better history to that marriage that she was not going to toss out to satisfy her critics during the impeachment. Marriage can be a litmus test for how a person might govern. Bill’s screw up within his marriage was not totally disconnected to some of his bad Presidential decisions, including his pardon of Mark Rich, and his embrace of NAFTA; suggesting immediate gratification without a thought of the consequences to his own reputation or to the nation’s workers.

I might even draw some political conclusions from the easy yet spirited and loving marriage of Michelle and Barak Obama, suggesting that he would be a leader who would respond to the country’s needs in a thoughtful and caring way:

Then look at the Bush marriage. Laura and George existing in separate worlds even as they inhabit the same space; the sad disconnect of a cheerful looking couple who have only one thing in common, an inability to face the facts: George, in his constant losing battle with reality, Laura smiling her ladylike library smile from one denial to another denial about the toxic consequences of her husband’s presidency. I might even contrast Obama with John McCain, whose marital history shows a streak of cruel opportunism, suggesting a man who will always abandon his principles and the welfare of the disadvantaged, as he abandoned his first disadvantaged wife when it proved expedient.

Having said that I have to step back a little for nobody, and that includes this writer, has the right to pass too harsh a judgment on other people’s loves and marriages, which doesn’t mean that I don’t do so from time to time. What I do know is that marriage is occasionally an arrangement, sometimes a marvel, often a mess, and always a mystery. I have observed that love ties us up in its amazing contradictions and confusions, and never more so than in a marriage.

The Gas Tax 'Holiday' Shell Game

by Janet Ritz

Cross-posted on The Huffington Post, Reuters, FoxNews

Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain have challenged Senator Barack Obama over his refusal to support their proposal that would suspend the .18 Federal gas tax for three months this summer.

The problem?

A near-unanimous chorus of protests from experts, economists and environmentalists, all of whom support Senator Obama's position that the 'holiday' would net less than thirty cents a day for consumers -- if indeed any net at all -- since, historically, oil companies have absorbed the savings without passing them on, while gutting the transportation infrastructure trust fund that is the source of income for thousands of American workers and the safety net for our highways and bridges that are currently crumbling.

Environmentalists have also added that it would likely lead to more gasoline usage as at time when we need to reduce our carbon footprint due to the impact of climate change.

The lone 'expert' in support of Senators Clinton and McCain in this scenario so far?

Spokesman for the Clinton campaign and SHELL OIL LOBBYIST, Steve Elmendorf.

To which, Senator Obama responded:

“In a moment of candor, her advisers actually admitted that it wouldn’t have much of an effect on gas prices. But, they said, it’s a great political issue for Senator Clinton. So this is not about getting you through the summer, it’s about getting elected,” Obama argued. “This is what passes for leadership in Washington, phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems.”

The environmental organization, Friends of the Earth, has endorsed Senator Obama, citing the gas tax issue as false and lauding the Illinois Senator for standing up to political pressure to tell the truth about it. Newspapers across the country have also weighed in with their criticism, including this quote by one of Senator Clinton's own supporters:

“I was appalled by Hillary going with the gas tax,” said Alice M. Rivlin, a budget director under former President Bill Clinton who supports Mrs. Clinton for the nomination. It “looked like pandering,” Mrs. Rivlin said.

An open letter signed recently by more than 100 economists said the proposed tax holiday would do little to reduce gas prices. In part, that is because a fall in prices would lead to more demand, which would cause prices to return to their earlier level. The result would be that overseas oil-producing governments would get money now flowing to the United States government in gas taxes.

What is also being lost in this pandering: the fact that this idea was first floated by John McCain and then picked up by Senator Clinton...

[1] [2]

Why Rush Limbaugh thinks this site is 'unfriendly'

by Janet Ritz

Recently, I posted an article by Huffington Post contributor, Terry Leach, entitled: Hillary Clinton's 'Victory' in Pennsylvania: The Rush Limbaugh Effect.

The article discusses the potential impact on the primary numbers by those influenced to change their registration from Republican to Democrat, in order to vote for Hillary Clinton, as part of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos."

Today, I was informed that Mr. Limbaugh had mentioned this on his radio show:

Rush Limbaugh: 'I stumbled across something called The Environmentalist.org, but it's a blog on environmentalists. It was posted on Saturday: "Hillary Clinton's 'Victory' in Pennsylvania: The Rush Limbaugh Effect." And he goes on to analyze what all happened there. He said, "Something's not right." He goes on to analyze even more, and then says, "I believe that Rush's Operation Chaos is at play here and authenticity has nothing to do with too may new Democratic registrants in the last contests. This re-registration is, I believe, being undertaken at Rush's suggestion to cynically stretch this contest out -- as long as possible -- so that Hillary's promised kitchen sink theory -- will end up driving both candidates' negatives through the roof so that neither is likely to win against McCain. Voters in upcoming contests will always be swayed by the outcome of preceding contests. It's human nature to be influenced by the wisdom of those who've gone before us. But if I'm right -- and the outcome in Pennsylvania, and perhaps Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio were influenced by Rush's call to Republicans to keep Hillary in the race longer --Democratic voters in Indiana and North Carolina, and the states that follow, deserve to know that we're being manipulated."

This is not a friendly blog.'

I beg to differ.

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST is a very friendly blog (site, actually, we don't take comments), where contributors post about geopolitics, the environment and other subjects of interest -- not as a rule on environmentalists themselves -- and Terry Leach, a respected activist and former Democratic strategist, is a she, not a he.

Ms. Leach's response, upon hearing of Mr. Limbaugh's broadcast: "it is human nature to dismiss those out-of-hand that you either don't respect, those that you don't wish to empower or to acknowledge as to the impact of their actions. However, if there is any truth to the possibility that "Operation Chaos" is having an impact, it should be explored to determine if those changing their registration are doing so out of their own beliefs or because they hope to influence the process."

Mr. Limbaugh closed by saying "everyone is talking about Operation Chaos."

Apparently, thanks to Mr. Limbaugh, they are now talking about THE ENVIRONMENTALIST, as well.

Hillary Clinton's ‘Victory’ in Pennsylvania: The Rush Limbaugh Effect

by Terry Leach

What if Democratic voters and the uncommitted super-delegates come to learn that Rush Limbaugh had a greater impact on Hillary Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania, and maybe Texas and Ohio, than say, the Reverend Wright, and the so-called ‘bitter’ comments? Would such a finding influence how voters view the Pennsylvania ‘victory?’

If my thesis is correct, you have to ask yourself why so many Republicans want Hillary Clinton to run against John McCain in November.

Here is what we know: Approximately 160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans, Independents and/or new voters registered as Democrats in the months preceding the April 22 Primary. Media reports widely credit the tanking economy, health care crisis, and war in Iraq for Republican disillusionment. But wait—let’s look at those very impressive numbers a little closer and compare the re-registration data to say, California. Pennsylvania is the home of approximately 12 million residents while California is the home of almost 38 million residents, over three times the size of Pennsylvania. So we might expect the California re-registration figures to climb to about three times the number of Pennsylvania’s re-registrants.

But that isn’t the case.

At 170,000 new Democrats, California, the most populous state, and arguably the state widely considered as being the most likely to hop on the latest bandwagon, roughly approximated the Pennsylvania experience, prior to its Primary election on Super Tuesday.

Something’s not right.

In the weeks between Super Tuesday and April 22, the date of the Pennsylvania Primary, the circular firing squad occurring between the two Democratic campaigns increased both Democratic candidates’ unfavorability ratings, while McCain began to win against both candidates in hypothetical match-up polls, for the first time. If distressed Republicans wanted to bail out of their Party, common sense suggests that they’d have been much more likely to do so after McCain locked up the GOP nomination but before Clinton and Obama began to engage in the 24/7 mud wrestling match leading up to the Pennsylvania campaign.

I’ve worn a lot of hats in my life, one of which was to serve as a Democratic strategist for congressional and statewide campaigns, and the other, as the Democratic Party’s Voter Registration Chair for the most evenly split county in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. I have conducted over 100 voter registration events in front of area Target stores, Farmers’ Markets, at the mall, in schools and colleges and at area train stations in the last several years. I have talked to voters of every age, color, religion, socio-economic class, and gender. I have observed one common characteristic of authentically disillusioned Republicans.

They share with me that they are torn about their decision to register out of the Party of their parents. Almost reverently, they talk about the Republican Party they grew up with, and often articulate a concern that their family not learn about their defection. And in almost all cases, and I’ve helped hundreds of voters re-register--they leave their Grand Old Party by first going to Decline to State—and then, after placing their newly liberated toes in the water by voting Democratic several cycles in a row—they take the plunge and re-register Democratic.

[1] [2]

The Environmentalist Supports Barack Obama

by Janet Ritz

Cross-posted on The Huffington Post

The contributing writers have just completed a conference call to discuss which 2008 U.S. presidential candidate we felt would be most effective on the environment.

The consensus: Senator Barack Obama.

That is not to imply there would be any lack of support for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. The consensus is that we'd be fortunate with any Democrat in the White House and that we would all work diligently for a Democratic outcome once the nomination is settled.

That being said, here are our reasons for choosing Senator Obama...

Read more