Class Warfare (by Susie at Suburban Guerrilla)
[F]rom Daily Kos...: "If the lines had continued to track closely together as they did prior to the 1970s, the MINIMUM WAGE would be more than $19 an hour. THE MINIMUM WAGE!!!..."... Also a major factor: The two-paycheck family obscured this wage deflation. After all, with both husband and wife working, it almost added up to one healthy paycheck! (As you can imagine, single moms like me had no trouble figuring it out.) I used to read years ago that Republicans actually liked the influx of women into the workplace for precisely this reason: It gave them cover for deflating wages. Nice work, guys!

MORE MORE MORE

By Nezua

Media Consortium Mediawire Blogger

The new year rushes upon us with momentum born of crisis and necessity. In every direction one looks, change is needed--and not cosmetic alteration, but deep, structural repair. The issue of immigration is no exception.

Warning this video is graphic.

Sorry this is just a cut-and-paste job, but the perspective of Paul Rogers (of opendemocracy) needs to be heard by everyone, peaceniks and realpolitikers alike. He states that while likely the chief benefit for Al Queda from the Gaza war is in the damage done to Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt (see "Cairo's balancing act over Gaza"), there is also the following (emphasis added) to weigh:

But the advantage al-Qaida might gain from the Gaza war of 2008-09 may go further. For an emerging and widespread public interpretation of the conflict across the middle east draws on evidence of the more than seven years of "war on terror" to place what is happening in Gaza in a wider context, in a way that can be used to reinforce the movement's worldview.

What is happening in Gaza, according to this general perspective, is that it is not an Israeli war but a joint operation by the United States and Israel. Thus, the F-16 strike aircraft and the Apache helicopter-gunships are seen less as Israeli aircraft but as American aircraft with Israeli markings. This in turn feeds into the wider perception of a generalized war against Islam being conducted by a crusader-Zionist opponent that must be resisted by all means possible. From this outlook, it is Hamas that is on the frontline of the moment and deserving of increased support.

This is a deeply embedded worldview. What makes it more potent is that it is grounded in many elements of US-Israeli cooperation that are clear and beyond controversy. As a number of columns in this series have reported, the military connections between Washington and Tel Aviv that predated the war in Iraq that began in 2003 were hugely boosted as US forces ran full-tilt into an urban insurgency in Iraq.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict including the recent Gaza invasion is not about Jews. It is about Israelis who have run amok, and it is not all Israelis at that. Israel is now engaged in a moral crisis and its government is now acting in a manner to enrage Jews everywhere. Not In Our Name used to be the name of a Boston group of Jewish Americans, which folded into Jewish Voice for Peace. Look them up. For now here is the kind of actions such Jews are taking as innocents, Palestinians, die in Gaza.

Toronto: Wednesday January 8, 2009

BURRIS THE PERSISTENT

After trying unsuccessfully to sell the President-elect's Senate seat, accused Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich gave it away by appointing an unblemished journeyman politician, Roland Burris. This was less a "clean" appointment action than an effort to embarrass those opposing the Governor. He succeeded.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders said emphatically that any appointee of the Illinois Governor would be so tainted that the Senate would never accept him.
They underestimated Roland Burris. Mr. Burris showed up, was turned away, but then hung around claiming that he was the junior Senator from Illinois, holding press conferences, and picking up supporters and endorsements.

He wore Mr. Reid down. The grounds for rejection were really quite shaky. The Illinois governor was still in office, performing his other governing duties. Backtracking daily, Harry Reid was finally reduced to reliance on the fact that the Illinois Secretary of State had not signed the appointment certificate. A slender reed indeed.

Roland Burris will be accepted as Illinois Senator. Blago will smile. And Mr. Burris can add another "Burris the Trail Blazer" to his worshipful mausoleum.

homer   www.altara.blogspot.com

This Saturday, supporters of equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people, will rally at Boston City Hall to call on President-Elect Obama and the new Congress support equal rights. The event is being organized by Join The Impact MA, the same group that organized the protest at Boston City Hall on November 15th which drew thousands of people as Boston saw the largest LGBT related protest in decades.

LGBT Rights Protest
1:30 p.m.
Saturday, January 10th
Boston City Hall

Advocates and allies are urging the new administration to repeal the anti-gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), repeal the ban on gays in the military (Don't Ask Don't Tell), enact Hate-Crimes legislation, and fight against HIV/AIDS.

The demonstration on Saturday is part of a nation-wide effort to draw attention to LGBT equality. There will be simultaneous protests in over 50 cities across the country. The recent surge of LGBT related activism is being seen as a new push for equal rights for LGBT people.

According to the NY Times Obama plans to wade in to Social Security and Medicare reform:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

The strongest liberal criticisms of Obama during the primary came when he adopted the Republican's "Social Security is in crisis" line. While there is a solid case to reform Medicare within the context of reforming our national health care system and providing universal care, there is very little reason to mess with Social Security. Opening up Social Security for changes at this point in time is especially troubling since recent economic performance will make the program look less viable now than it will look in 5 or 10 years when economic growth returns. One silver lining is that any attempt to privatise the program is probably DOA given last year's stock market performance.

Since Obama made Social Security reform an issue in the primary he is probably serious about making changes with this announcement, I doubt it is a head-fake for Republicans.

Anyone have any idea why he is raising Social Security as an issue now? And why in the context of controlling budget deficits?