Latest From Our Writers

Marshall argues  here  that taking down DeLay is a noble cause, but cautions the cancer of unethical practices has already infected the House. While he may be the worst offender, he's not the only one. Says Marshall: "Much depends on whether DeLay gets nailed on particular instances of criminal conduct. But he isn't a majoritylLeader who happens, possibly, also to be corrupt. The GOP Majority in the House is built on his corrupt practices, his money machine. They define its modes of operation and priorities. "

More »»

There's potentially very good news on the horizon: the G8 rich nations have agreed, theoretically, to require the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to cancel all debt—that's 100 percent—for impoverished African nations. The outcome of the IAF and World Bank meetings taking place on April 16 and 17 could pave the way for debt cancellation agreements at the G8 summit in Scotland this July. The importance of debt cancellation for poor nations just can't be overstated. Without debt obligations to rich countries, money can be diverted to poverty alleviation, AIDS treatment and prevention efforts and sustainable agriculture. And poor nations have already paid many times over—through interest and fees—for the assistance they got from wealthy creditors. A group of faith leaders has written a letter to President Bush and Treasury Secretary John Snow asking them to work for debt cancellation, and Sojourners has organized a citizen campaign to advocate debt forgiveness. Click here to take action.

More »»

Steve Clemons remains steadfast and vigilant in the effort to block John Bolton's nomination. After interviewing numerous contacts and sources within the national security community, Clemons reveals Bolton to be a rogue operator unable to represent or advance the stated policy of the president and secretary of state.

Here is the critical passage:

Bolton yesterday reported that it was not he that had worked against the Bush administration's foreign policy—but rather Jack Pritchard.

The next part of this story is key.

The angry North Koreans then ordered a meeting with Ambassador Jack Pritchard in New York, and in consultations with his senior managers, Pritchard reportedly put into full force what Secretary of State Powell had ordered before: no one but the President of the United States or the Secretary of State could announce U.S. policy when it came to North Korean affairs.

What I have learned from several sources very close to these talks is that the following occurred—and all of this is contained in classified diplomatic notes that Senators and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff (who are cleared) can access.

More »»

Help us spread the word about these important stories...

Email to a friend

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on OurFuture.org.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Your Email: *

Your Name: *

Send To: *

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You can only email up to 10 recipients

You are going to email the following: How Bolton Undermined U.S. Security

Message Subject: (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from OurFuture.org

Message Body: (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the OurFuture.org web site.

Your Personal Message: *

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Propeller
• Reddit
• Magnoliacom
• Newsvine
• Furl
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo
• Technorati

Edward Cody's  "China Builds A Smaller, Stronger Military"  in today's WP delivers an important piece of the progressive national security argument. China, driven by its rising internal demand for oil supplies, now looks at Taiwan not only as an nationalist issue, but as as a strategic necessity. Effective possession of Taiwan would help secure 80 percent of Chinese oil supply routes. Taiwan would also secure the deep-water Pacific ports needed to ensure a reliable nuclear deterrent against the United States.

Cody writes:

But the expansion of China's interests abroad, particularly energy needs, has also broadened the military's mission in recent years. Increasingly, according to foreign specialists and Chinese commentators, China's navy and air force have set out to project power in the South China Sea, where several islands are under dispute and vital oil supplies pass through, and in the East China Sea, where China and Japan are at loggerheads over mineral rights and several contested islands.

More »»

Help us spread the word about these important stories...

Email to a friend

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on OurFuture.org.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Your Email: *

Your Name: *

Send To: *

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You can only email up to 10 recipients

You are going to email the following: The Next Oil War?

Message Subject: (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from OurFuture.org

Message Body: (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the OurFuture.org web site.

Your Personal Message: *

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Propeller
• Reddit
• Magnoliacom
• Newsvine
• Furl
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo
• Technorati

You're poor. You're pregnant. Maybe you're in a violent relationship and don't want another child that will make you more dependent on your husband. Maybe you just don't want to have a child. The National Network of Abortion Funds  has released a study illustrating the hardships faced by low-income women who seek abortions.

NNAF's report states that:

Every year, tens of thousands of poor women and teens are forced to carry a pregnancy to term because they cannot afford to pay for an abortion.

In many states, private funds exist to help women financially who want an abortion and lack the funds. One of these funds in Delaware, which was included in the survey, reported that women applying for funds for abortions were "more likely to be teenagers, to have larger families and be pregnant as a result of rape." 

More »»

Even if your employer hasn't actually cut your pay recently, when you look at the economy as a whole, it's as if all of America has taken a pay cut. That's because, for the first time in 14 years, wages aren't keeping up with inflation . The cost of living is creeping upward while employees' take-home pay stays the same. One reason for this (and, I think, a good reason for outrage) is that corporations are making record profits—but they're not passing any of that money onto their employees. They don't have to. In a stagnant job market like our current one, there are so many people willing to work at nearly any price that corporations can siphon more productivity out of their workers without any increased compensation. Add to this mess the increasingly higher health care premiums that employers are forcing workers to pay, plus cuts in government services that help low-income people, and there should be more than enough outrage to go around.

More »»

"In a little-noticed move, the U.S. EPA's official science advisers yesterday supported a call by EPA staff scientists who believe the current national air quality standards for fine-particle soot should be made significantly tighter to protect people's health.The science advisers agreed that the allowable daily amount of fine-particle pollution in the air should be cut by about half."

That just in from Frank O'Donnell at Clean Air Watch.

Those on the side of public health just won a significant battle in the war over industrial emissions. I must say it is heartening to see scientists standing up and confronting greed with hard numbers.

Now, as O'Donnell said, it is time to watch the lobbyists try to reverse the damage to their position. Stay tuned.

More »»

Welcome to Uncommon Sense , the latest offering from TomPaine.com.

Uncommon Sense is the house web log at TomPaine.com. Every day, our editors will blog the events, stories, personalities and debates driving politics here in our nation’s capital. Sitting three blocks from the White House, TomPaine.com’s editors are constantly seeking and receiving the latest progressive insight and analysis. Uncommon Sense is our effort to deliver to our readers more of that information—regardless of the form it takes. Holding us to high blogging standards will be Assistant Editor Laura Donnelly.

Uncommon Sense is an effort to simplify and deepen the way we deliver high-quaility progressive insight and analysis to you, our readers. Responding to reader feedback and a professional survey, we've developed Uncommon Sense in a way that will allow TomPaine.com's editors to harness the power of the blogosphere in the service of our three goals: defending progressive gains, triaging emerging crises and advancing a new progressive agenda.

So send us your thoughts, your tips, and your criticism. Thanks for reading.

More »»

You've probably heard that President Bush's plan for private retirement savings accounts would likely eliminate Social Security guaranteed benefits—the amount retirees will certainly get, no matter what other factors (like the stock market) might intervene. Now, a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service finds that there's no '"likely" about it—the president's plan will eliminate the guaranteed benefit. But you wouldn't know that from listening to the president's spiel. This week, Bush repeated one of his familiar lines that privatizing Social Security would provide "growing assets that you can control, that you call your own—assets that the government cannot take away." Too bad he failed to mention that you'll be out on your own if the market takes a downward turn, your assets lose value, and there's no longer any guaranteed Social Security benefit to back you up.

More »»

Just spotted this confirmation of  the new normal from the IMF. Oil prices, they estimate, will stay high in the long term, because of rising demand. This is a vastly different and more difficult challenge than the 1970s when political factors took supply off the global market. This from the Financial Times: 

The world faces “a permanent oil shock” and will have to adjust to sustained high prices in the next two decades, the International Monetary Fund said on Thursday in the starkest official warning yet about the long-term outlook for energy supplies.

Predicting surging demand from emerging countries and limited new supplies from outside the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after 2010, Raghuram Rajan, IMF chief economist, said: “We should expect to live with high oil prices.”

“Oil prices will continue to present a serious risk to the global economy,” he added.

It gets better:

More »»