Podbean Podcast Site Category :   General   Tags :    

Rep. Joe Crowley & Gov. Mike Huckabee rock on

September 11, 2008

It was one of those adorable, bipartisan, even international moments: a Democratic congressman from Queens a former governor from Arkansas in musical collaboration, celebrating the virtues of a 17-year-old girl in a song penned by two Brits.  Yesterday, at the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank, former Gov. Mike Huckabee (bass) and Rep. Joe Crowley (guitar and vocal) rocked the tank yesterday with their version of the Beatles' "I Saw Her Standing There" to promote the Music National Service Initiative a new national service project that uses music as the means of transforming society.

Huckabee, embracing a position that seems designed to rile his fellow social conservatives, has long been a proponent of music and arts education in the public schools.  During his term as governor, Huckabee pushed through the Arkansas legislature a bill that mandated music education for every student in the state's public schools. It's a cure he prescribes for all of the states.

"Now, it's going to be rare that you hear a Republican talk about mandates," Huckabee said, "but... if we don't force it, we don't fund it, because there's too many competing interests.  My experience was, once we mandated that music education take place with certified teachers, we started funding it -- because we had to."

While the appearance of the Republican presidential also-ran and Baptist preacher on the stage of a liberal institution may seem a head-scratcher, CAP President John Podesta told of how he and Huckabee got to know each other during a stressful patch of a humanitarian mission to Rwanda.  "It's amazing, I think, Mike," Podesta said, "how being a plane on a tarmac in Kigali with an engine that's blowing out on take-off can quickly cause two men to put policy differences aside, partisan differences aside, and become fast friends."

Huckabee was quick to explain that his advocacy for music education sprang not from some sweet  impulse to beautify the culture.  It's about the economy, stupid, he explained (without the stupid part).

"We've got to start helping people to understand that there is a direct correlation between the power of our own economy -- the power of our own future survival -- and the power of stimulating creativity," Huckabee explained.  Because where will we find energy independence?  It will be in the creativity that comes from students who will who, maybe, were first artists -- because most of the great thinkers and inventors and scientists of the world were first musicians and artists."

As evidence, he cited Richard Florida's trend-setting book, The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic 2002).  Interesting, as Huckabee, hardly a friend to gay people, is touting a book that cites, as a major geographical indicator of creative-class economies, the number of LGBT residents.

Huckabee has a bone to pick with the "No Child Left Behind" bill passed by Congress in 2001, but it's not the common complaint about the law's incentive to make educators teach math and science "to the test" rather than in creative ways.  Huckabee noted that while No Child Left Behind was often blamed for the collapse of music and arts programs in poorer school districts, the problem was not with the bill, but with local administrators.  The law actually mandates arts education, Huckabee said, but "[s]chools and school districts were not held accountable for the results of music and music education and arts, many schools said, 'If we're going to be held accountable for it, we won't care.  If we're only going to be held accountable for math and science and reading, that's the only thing we'll put money into.'"  (Perhaps that's why a music-teacher friend of mine in Washington, D.C., calls the bill "No Child Left a Dime".)

Founded by Kiff Gallagher, a singer-songwriter "who served on the White house legislative team that created AmeriCorps," according to his bio, MNSI has won the support of Huckabee and Crowley, especially for the non-profit organization's MusicianCorps, described by Gallagher as "a musical Peace Corps" designed to bring music education to areas and school districts where access to music lessons is not available.

Crowley, who will co-chair a Congressional Musicians' Caucus designed to support MusicianCorps, is embracing the program for more prosaic reasons, he said.   "You never hear of anyone going to war over music," he explained. "The worst of if is the battle of the bands."

While Crowley went all peace, love and understanding, Huckabee couldn't resist getting in a dig. "Republicans do like the arts," he said,  "and some of us believe that Republicans can rock, too -- not just Democrats -- even though when we play the music, sometimes the musicians get all mad about it and demand we quit.  My band played a Boston tune; Tom Schultz went berserk and demanded that we quit and we reminded him, 'Tom, you sold the music; we paid a license fee; get over it.'"  Last week, Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart demanded that the McCain campaign stop using their hit "Barracuda" to promote Sarah Palin at campaign rallies.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (189)

create free online store

How to Save the Constitution:
An interview with Sen. Feingold by Brian Beutler

July 10, 2008
Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (2)

This Constantly Pulsating Fear

July 8, 2008

BRIAN BEUTLER: So starting on FISA, a lot of people were impressed with the House Democrats' performance back in February when they refused to advance the Senate bill. In the interim, what happened? Where was the pressure coming from within the Democratic party to revisit this issue and not wait at least until there was a new administration in place? ...

SEN. RUSSELL FEINGOLD: This is just really amazing to me, because there's always the pressure on this.  There's a very interesting thing that happens with these where people get fired up and people really have good instincts about civil liberties and would really  prefer to be on this side. I think that's what they really believe in. So you get kind of a head of steam, which I noticed happened with the blocking of the reauth of the Patriot Act for a while, until people caved. And it happened for a while even in the Senate on the PAA (Protect America Act, which is the name of the new FISA legislation). But what was a surprise was what the House did. I mean that was really impressive that a group of people, including Steny Hoyer and others, stood up and said, "No, we're not gonna do this."

But the problem is that there's this fear, that sort of grows over time, that somehow Democrats are gonna get hit over the head by claims that they're soft on terrorism. And it always rears its head, especially when we're heading into a recess period or an election period. What's happening right now is that they claim that the problem is that the. We were able to make the argument early in the year that the orders were lasting for a year. So even if the law expired, the orders allowing the surveillance were still in place. Until August. Well, we're coming up to August.

Now, the truth is that we could simply extend the bill for a year, sunset it. We could extend the orders. But as you get closer to these deadlines, the administration uses these intimidation tactics, and far too many Democrats fall for it. They think that somehow the administration's gonna win this argument. I don't think that's true. I think the Democrats did great the last few months when the House stood up to them. But there is this sort of inertia -- if that's the right word -- that leads to ultimately the caving of very large numbers of Democrats, even voting for an awful piece of legislation like this. That's the only way I know how to describe it. I don't know, the day-to-day pressure; it's like this constantly pulsating fear of being accused of being soft on terrorism.

BB: Following up on that, then. How, politically, does one change that mindset -- that being tough on national security means that the Democratic party has to support wars and the erosion of civil liberties?

RF: I think you show people that those who stand firm on this do just fine politically. I like to think of myself as an example of that. There are many people like that. The truth is that if you properly articulate that you want to balance national security and make sure we protect civil liberties at the same time. And take the time to go through the arguments -- which are very frankly easy to win -- these are not hard arguments. When anybody really listens to it, they just kinda shake their head. Then you can prevail and show people that you don't need to buckle at the knees on this. But it requires a little patience. It requires a little faith in peoples' willingness to listen. And that's how in the long run you prevail. And I'm hoping that a lot of people who run this time, unlike a lot of people who ran in 2006, are held accountable.

I'm sure many of our candidates are gonna say, you know, I was against immunity and I don't like this bill. Well, they need to be held accountable when they get here. And that hasn't really happened. We have a lot of Democrats, even some who voted to get us out of iraq, who aren't voting properly on this, in a way that is, you know frankly, very damaging to our efforts to improve the bill.

BB: I understand. So you don't think that an Attorney General Feingold or a DNI Feingold (in the next administration) would be crucial?

RF: I certainly don't think it's crucial, and I think that the place I am right now -- where I sit on the intelligence committee, the foreign relations committee and the judiciary committee -- gives me a really unique angle on this. I think I may be the only person that has that combination of committees that relates to all of these issues.

BB: That's why I requested the interview.

RF: I think it gives me a rather unique opportunity to pursue these issues. In the Senate. So I think that might be the best place for it.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (428)

Sen. Byron Dorgan: Pentagon officials “were just lying” about KBR’s dirty water for U.S. troops

June 5, 2008

Longer snip (1:51) from Sen. Byron Dorgan's May 21, 2008, meeting with reporters.  Dorgan, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, conducted hearings into the former Halliburton subsidary's provision of contaminated water to U.S. troops in Iraq. Now, an inspector general report he requested suggests deception on the part of Pentagon.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (528)

Sen. Byron Dorgan: What will Gates do about general who lied to Congress?

June 5, 2008

A 28-second snip from Sen. Byron Dorgan's May 21st meeting with reporters. Here he talks about the testimony of Gen. Jerome Johnson before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 19, 2007. Dorgan says Johnson's purpose before the committee was to "deceive the Congress." The senator sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates three months ago, asking how Gates plans to address Johnson's apparently false testimony. He still awaits a reply.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (389)

Give us your wisdom, Minnesota!
LFMS Minneapolis 60-sec PSA

May 29, 2008

Join Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman and other progressive media figures and everyday people in Minneapolis on June 8 for a town hall meeting on issues important to you.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (2)

Minnesota, we’re listening!
LFMS Minneapolis 30-sec PSA

May 29, 2008

Join Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman and other progressive media figures and everyday people in Minneapolis on June 8 for a town hall meeting on issues important to you.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (2)

Senate Leader Reid: No “mad rush for immunity”

May 13, 2008

In a meeting this morning with reporters and bloggers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled that civil libertarians may have less to fear than  expected from a surveillance bill currently being negotiated in a conference of House and Senate committees.

Reid made the remarks during a meeting with reporters in the U.S. Capitol building, in answer to my question about current negotiations between House and Senate committees on legislation governing wiretapping in terrorism investigations.  The legislation would renew post-9/11 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that expired last year.  At issue between the House and Senate bills is the question of retroactive immunity from prosecution for telecom companies who provided customer data to the government, without a court order to do so.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed a version of the legislation, known as the Protect America Act, that provided immunity to the telecoms, effectively shielding from scrutiny government officials who ordered the collection of such data.  Critics contend that the immunity provisions in the Senate bill ultimately http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mathis30_04-30-08_UO9NUCE_v10.39c6e3f.html">protect President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney from prosecution for civil rights violations. The House version confers no such immunity.  The Senate bill also grants, with little judicial involvement or oversight, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/104227/863/70/438259">vast powers to the executive branch for widespread surveillance involving Americans.  The conference committee is working to reconcile the two versions.

Even though the Senate version contains the immunity language, Reid's heart, he says, is in another place.  "I personally don't believe that the phone companies should have immunity," he told reporters, "and I certainly don't believe that Bush and Cheney should have immunity."

When the House passed a version of the bill that failed to include the immunity provisions, President Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080213.html">accused House Democrats of leaving the United States vulnerable to attack by terrorists.  "Everyone was in a panic," Reid said. "If we didn't pass FISA...the world was going to fall apart -- and it didn't." Because of that, Reid said, "I think the mad rush for immunity is not as intense as it was."

Critics of the bill, such as leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?page=SplashPage&id=883">have suggested that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who leads the negotiations for the Senate bill, was ready to side with the administration on the matter of immunity for telecom companies.  Reid appeared to suggest this is not necessarily the case.

Until the legislation is passed, wiretapping on matters concerning foreign intelligence is governed by the FISA law as it was written in 1978.

Adele M. Stan Executive Editor, Syndicated Reporting Project The Media Consortium

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (2)

Podbean.com Best Podcast Hosting Audio Video Blog Hosting!

May 11, 2008

Welcome to Podbean.com. You can edit this post by clicking "Manage" Tab then "Posts" sub-Tab after you log into your Podbean Dashboard. Podbean.com provides an all-in-one service for video and audio podcast/blog. You can customize your podcast/blog site on mouse clicking, see where your audiences come from on a geographic map powered by Google, moderate your comments with a built-in anti-Spam filter, easy to customize your iTunes podcast page in the iTunes preview page. Learn more at http://news.podbean.com. Have question ? Check out Podbean.com FAQ. Happy Podcasting!