LIBERADIO(!)

Summary: In a good old-fashioned honky tonk debunk-a-bunk, we speak with Dennis Henigan, Director of the Legal Action Project for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He dispels the mythical conservative talking point that more guns equal more security and confirms that, in fact, guns do kill people! The Virginia Tech shooting was preventable based on existing law, so he emphasizes the need for improving enactment and enforcement of existing law. Unfortunately, the NRA apparently has a more compelling story than that of a man named Brady…

Listen to: Here’s the Story, of a Pro-gun Lobby… (20:14 9.3MB)

Summary: Our guest in this segment is Allen F. St. Pierre, Executive Director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. In this role, Mr. St. Pierre has written, debated, and lectured extensively on the topic of cannabis and its prohibition.

St. Pierre is in Nashville today to appear at the benefit to save Bernie Ellis‘ farm. Ellis’ farm was raided and he was arrested and sent to jail after admitting that he had been providing free cannabis to sick and dying people for many years, beginning when he helped establish the Tennessee AIDS Program for the Tennessee Department of Health in the late 1980s. In our interview with St. Pierre, he explains why the federal government is trying to confiscate Ellis’ farm while revealing the antiquated laws surrounding the prohibition of marijuana.

Listen to: Save Bernie’s Farm (04:20 9.2MB)

The Democrat’s plan for withdrawl from Iraq is a reasonable one calling for “some American forces to remain in or near Iraq to make targeted counterterrorism attacks and train Iraqi forces; appeals for international diplomacy to nudge Iraqi factions to negotiations; and demands that the Iraqi government meet deadlines for progress on political reforms.” If these deadlines are not met, then troop withdrawl will begin.

President Bush has stated that he will veto the legislation passed by both the House and the Senate because he strongly rejects “an artificial timetable,” “setting dates for bringing troops home would allow America’s enemies to wait out U.S. forces,” and “Politicians in Washington shouldn’t be telling generals how to do their job.”

So why at the same time is he “warning Iraqi leaders that the boost in forces could be reversed if political reconciliation is not evident by summer”? And why did Secretary of Defense Gates say this week during a visit to Iraq that the “clock is ticking” and that he wants “to see faster political progress by the Iraqis”? Interestingly, Gates also told Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States will not keep fighting indefinitely.

Apparently, the Bush administration and Congress want the same thing – to hold the Iraqi government accountable for some progress and if none is made then to begin troop withdrawl. Bush’s veto threat is a lethal combination of posturing and hubris, both inappropriate while soldiers and civilians continue to perish.

Remember, “As Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down?” Not so much anymore.

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces. Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said. … Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq.”

This kind of major Iraq war policy shift is something Secretary of Defense Robert Gates should have mentioned when he was telling us about the extended tours.

Yesterday, Sgt. Jim Wilt, who works in the public affairs office at the Bagram military base, wrote, “I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member.”

He went on to note that “Bagram obeyed President Bush’s order last week that all U.S. flags at federal locations be flown at half-staff through April 22 to honor 32 people killed at Virginia Tech” but thinks “it’s sad that we do not raise the bases’ flag to half-staff when a member of our own task force dies.”

It is sad but the Bush administration wants us to shop instead of honor our fallen soldiers. See, if we don’t know you’re dying, we too can pretend that progress is being made.

George W. Bush, January 2006: “There’s progress. And it’s important progress and it’s an important part of our strategy to win in Iraq.”
George W. Bush, November 2005: “Iraq is making incredible political progress.”
George W. Bush, October 2005: “Iraqis are making inspiring progress.”
George W. Bush, September 2005: “Iraq has made incredible political progress.”
George W. Bush, April 2005: “I believe we’re making good progress in Iraq.”
George W. Bush, March 2005: “We’re making progress.”
George W. Bush, September 2004: “We’re making steady progress.”
George W. Bush, July 2003: “We’re making progress. It’s slowly but surely making progress.”

But maybe our most famous American philosopher, Jon Stewart, is right: “Actually, y’know what I think the president’s problem is? Perhaps his definition of the word “progress.” I have the reference book he uses when he doesn’t know what a word means: Mistaken P. Wrongingston’s Diktionary of English. Let’s see…ah, here we are. ‘Progress: Chaos caused by one’s own incompetence that’s portrayed as the result of others’ malfeasance.’”

Potential Republic presidential candidate Fred Thompson agrees that the decision to have an abortion should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor. (Doff of the Hat: Braisted)

Can someone explain to me what’s wrong with “safe, legal & rare?” Isn’t that the compromise we’re looking for?

The mentoring organization, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Middle Tennessee, has a program called Amachi, which organizes mentoring for the children of prisoners. Two bills making their way through the state legislature, HB1575 and SB1753, will provide funding for the program .

House Bill 1575, which was unanimously approved in House State and Local Government committee, will now go on to the House Finance, Ways & Means committee. It is critical that HB1575 gets through so please contact a member of the committee.

Today, Tuesday, April 24, SB1753 will come up before the Senate State and Local Government committee. Please call today to let them know you support this bill.

Contact: House Finance, Ways & Means Committee
Contact: Senate State & Local Government Committee

Help stop a vicious cycle:

• Over 30,000 children and youth under the age of 18 in this state with a parent incarcerated face a 70% likelihood of suffering the same fate without intervention. These children are unwilling participants in a violent cycle that is outside their control.
• Researchers estimate that the overall economic, social, and legal costs of just one youth entering a life of crime costs society $1.3 to $1.5 million.
• National research has shown that children with a mentor are 52% less likely to skip school, 46% less likely to begin using drugs, 27% less likely to begin using alcohol, and 33% less likely to engage in violent behavior when compared with similar at-risk youth.
• The federal government chose mentoring as its strategy to break the generational cycle of incarceration, allocating Dept. Of Health & Human Services (HHS) funds. In 2004, Tennessee received HHS funding to build a state program serving children of prisoners.

This investment to continue and expand the Tennessee Amachi Initiative will support:

• The continuing of most of the 1,200 existing matches between children of prisoners and mentors, and reach an additional 1,500 children (Annual cost of $2,000 per child).
• The ability to attract and leverage matching federal and corporate/foundation dollars to further expand the program, multiplying the number of children served. Goals: $1 million annually from continuing federal funding and $1 million annually from corporate and foundation support. An investment from the state in fact, enhances our chances of receiving another three year grant from HHS.
• This is a proven program with a three year track record of success, and the only program focused on children of incarcerated parents statewide with the infrastructure to support expansion.
• There is precedence. The State of Texas has made an $8M commitment over 3+ years to invest in Amachi Texas to serve 4,000 children of prisoners. Since state funding began, the Texas program has surpassed all of its goals. Adequate and sustainable state investment has boosted this from a small program to a rapidly growing initiative that is changing the fortunes of many of its most at-risk citizens.

The Nashville Arts Coalition is hosting a mayoral forum today, Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at Cheekwood, Botanic Hall. Sign in begins at 5:30 p.m., forum is from 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.

Tongiht’s forum will give you the opportunity to hear directly from the mayoral candidates about their visions for the arts in Nashville.

Open to the public free of charge. All are welcome. To rsvp, call 242-8856.

As Sam Quinones mentioned last week in our interview with him, “comprehensive immigration reform” is a loaded term, much like many of the other political footballs tossed around in perpetuity in our national political dialogue. Toward the end of the year, Foreign Affairs published the best article I’ve yet seen on what exactly is meant by comprehensive immigration reform.

Let’s look at the summary, and then I’ll highlight a few excerpts. Comprehensive immigration reform comprises three principle elements:

• more immigrant worker visas
• tougher and more effective enforcement
• a one-time transitional measure that allows the illegal immigrants already here to earn their way out of the shadows

Note that enforcement is in there. It’s just not the only thing that’s in there. And instead of mass deportation, there is deference given to the level of demand that exists in the American economy in the form of a guest worker program in combination with a transitional measure. Certainly, those two items are tied up in the controversy surrounding this debate. But they shouldn’t be. And Tamar Jacoby, the author of the piece, lucidly explains why.

Ms. Jacoby did the legwork on this piece, which I think is spot on, so let me defer to her words:

In fact, the nation is far less divided on immigration, legal or illegal, than the current debate suggests. In the last six months, virtually every major media outlet has surveyed public attitudes on the issue, and the results have been remarkably consistent. Americans continue to take pride in the United States’ heritage as a nation of immigrants. Many are uneasy about the current influx of foreigners. But an overwhelming majority — between two-thirds and three-quarters in every major poll — would like to see Congress address the problem with a combination of tougher enforcement and earned citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already living and working here. A strange-bedfellow coalition — of business associations, labor unions, and the Catholic Church, among others — has endorsed this position. In Washington, the consensus behind it is even more striking, with supporters spanning the spectrum from conservative President George W. Bush to left-leaning Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), from mavericks like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to party regulars like Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and all but a handful of congressional Democrats.

Congress’ failure to act is largely a product of political circumstances. The high-stakes midterm elections in November put an unusual premium on the opinions of the 20-25 percent of voters who depart from the emerging national consensus. Mostly male, white, and lacking college degrees, these naysayers believe immigrants are bad for the economy; they want to build a wall along the southern border and adamantly oppose allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens. Only about half are Republicans, and they account for no more than a quarter of the GOP. But many Republicans in Congress, particularly in the House, are convinced that this group is more intense — more concerned, more motivated, more likely to vote on the basis of this single issue — than anyone else likely to go to the polls. So the naysayers have become the tail wagging the dog of the immigration debate…

The term of art for what the consensus favors is “comprehensive immigration reform.” But the shared understanding is far more than a grab bag or a horse traders’ deal with a little something for everyone. The president and Senator Kennedy, for example, are both convinced that far from being a threat or a crisis, immigration is a boon to the United States — that the newcomers bring a welcome vitality, and that openness and optimism are a critical part of the nation’s character. Neither man sees danger in the growing role immigrants play in the economy; both see today’s influx as a force to be harnessed for the United States’ benefit. And although troubled by the illegality currently associated with immigration, both believe that reform must go beyond reasserting existing law in the face of lawlessness. Any effective overhaul must also bring the immigration system more into line with the changing realities of a global world.

But here’s the kicker:

This, then, is the essential architecture of comprehensive reform: more immigrant worker visas, tougher and more effective enforcement, and a one-time transitional measure that allows the illegal immigrants already here to earn their way out of the shadows. Together, these three elements add up to a blueprint, not a policy, and many questions and disagreements remain. But on one thing everyone who shares the vision agrees: all three elements are necessary, and all three must be implemented together if the overhaul is to be successful. Think of them as the three moving parts of a single engine. There is no tradeoff between enforcement and legalization or between enforcement and higher visa limits. On the contrary, just as enforcement is pointless if the law is unrealistic, so even the best crafted of laws will accomplish little if it has no teeth, and neither one will work unless the ground is prepared properly.

The above are highlighted excerpts, broad brushstrokes. The whole article, which contains plenty of compelling facts and evidence, is well worth a read.

Political ideology is responsible for the Iraq war, complete with it’s 3323 military and 62,281 civilian deaths.