Mr. Hannity: "There is no appeasing this enemy." (p. 6)

My response: By its very nature, terrorism is a drastic form of negotiation. It is defined as the threat or use of wanton violence to frighten governments in order to achieve a political goal. Just as a baby kicks and screams in an attempt to force his parents to give him what he wants, terrorists use violence hoping to leverage the US into complying with their demands. However, there are two noteworthy differences between the baby and the grownup terrorist. One is that the terrorists' ultimate objectives are usually just and legitimate. Second, "Islamic" terrorists are prepared to go to great lengths for their cause, even to die for it--precisely because it is just. To summarize, terrorists attempt to achieve a good end through bad means.

Mr. Hannity: We cannot excuse terrorists as "...men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western society". (p. 3)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree that there is no excuse for deliberate evil. If a person commits a bad act with full knowledge of what he is doing and full consent of the will, he is guilty of mortal sin, as the Catholic Church teaches and as I presume Hannity believes. Ultimately, that person can only blame himself for committing the act.

Is there any area of our government, over the span of the last seven years, any area, in domestic or foreign policy, national defense, public welfare, the economy, name it, where the average, reasonably informed American might point to success, to signs of progress, of improvement, something, anything, to point to with satisfaction, with pride?

Yesterday I read an article by Steve Benin on the resignation of Karen Hughes from her post as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, a mouthful there, and a job for which she was as ill suited and unqualified as the man who appointed her and in which, during her two year tenure, she accomplished little, if anything.

In truth, she accomplished nothing, unless you want to count convincing large portions of the world that all Americans must be as out of touch with reality, as clueless and unthinking as their current Commander in Chief, and at that she excelled, as anyone might, having been dispatched to the Middle East with the rank of Ambassador, but without knowledge of the language, culture, history, religions, and general pet peeves of the various states and peoples of the region.

But Karen Hughes was tapped for her office for the same reasons as all Bush appointees are chosen, not for expertise or experience, not for performance or integrity in public service but for loyalty, for unwavering belief in the Messianic delusions of neo conservatism, and a willingness to march in lockstep, nah, goose step, against all who might disagree or dissent.

The American people are very dissatisfied with the present state of affairs in their country. Polls taken in July revealed that less than 20 percent of Americans approve of the direction in which the United States is going. Furthermore, they are not naive as to the reason for this wrong direction: well over half the citizenry understands that a few billionaire tycoons have rigged our political system and media in order to advance their unfettered global business interests.

Kate Bourne is IWHC's Vice President for International Policy and Regional Programs.

In the United States, we have long expected corporations to be accountable to their employees by providing health insurance for workers and their families. Recently, around the world, the framework of corporate responsibility has expanded to include not only a company's employees, but also surrounding communities.

   

Investing in women's health and rights is a key mechanism for promotion of corporate accountability, as well as one of the best investments that businesses can make.

An increase in the minimum wage is once again hovering around the Congressional docket, as Democrats try to wedge it into various bills while Republicans try to sink it.

And once again, as reliable as clockwork, defenders and opponents are snapping into action, dusting off briefs and arguments, updating the analysis for inflation and generally doing the same dance we always do (I'm a defender).

There's got to be a better way.

Facts matter, so I'm not for a second saying that progressives should ignore the superior research, summarized below, that supports an increase. But I think we should also fight this one on basic fairness. It's simply shameful, in an era of sharply increasing economic inequality, for Congress to incessantly cut rich people's taxes yet refuse to help low-wage workers.

This past week, much to everyone's surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.

This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don't want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it's ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people's taxes but deny the working poor a boost.

Well, I say: "Not so fast, guys.  Let's chat about this for a few minutes."

Not let me get this straight.  Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains.  When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire's tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20.  Sorry, that's not a typo.  It's what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.

Wait a second, where you going?  I'm not done.  Set a spell...