The National Consumer Law Center put out a new report Thursday exposing the greedy, narrow-minded approach of credit card companies that extract hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and other revenue from subprime borrowers. You don't have to look far into history to see how similar greed and short-term thinking led to the subprime mortgage meltdown.
In just the last decade (from 1994-2004), the average debt for undergraduates more than doubled, to $19,800, while that for graduate students shot up 150%, to $37,600. (See “Quick Facts on Student Debt” from the Project on Student Debt here.) Even at public universities, 66.4% of students had debt; half had over $15,472; a quarter had over $22,822; and ten percent had over $32,994. The class of 2006 has debt 8% higher than the class of 2005. In response, colleges are asking themselves whether they should offer personal financial advice to students and maybe even a formal course (BYU is really ahead of the curve on this). As a financial aid director at Missouri told the Associated Press, "It seems that many of the students getting into bad financial situations are getting degrees in fields that are difficult to market, like psychology and history," he said. "The schools have to start giving students information about the financial consequences of their choices."
The Sunday Washington Post runs an oped by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Jewish studies at Harvard. Wisse is, to put it mildly, a hardliner on all matters relating to Jews. Her only bone of contention with Israel is that it is too gentle with its adversaries. In fact, she believes that Jews, in general, are still so averse to the uses of power that they suffer as a result.
Wisse's area of expertise is the Jews of Europe in the 20th century and with the Yiddish language in particular. For her, it is always 1942, the Jews are always victims, the non-Jews are always out to get us. She has, in short, a pre-1948 mentality in which Israel, armed with 200 nukes and the 4th strongest military power in the world, does not exist.
Paradoxically, its enemies do exist and they are everywhere. They are powerful and they are deadly. Jews must resist them by any means necessary.
One of the means she uses is libel. Here is what Wisse writes about Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer in the Washington Post. "Mearsheimer and Walt allege that a Jewish cabal dictates U.S. policy in the Middle East, helping Israeli interests and hurting U.S. ones." She also lies about former President Carter, saying he "accuses Jews of having too much clout."
In all of the noise about Iraq, Iran, Mukasey, FISA, and the upcoming Annapolis Peace Summit on Israel/Palestine, I neglected to mention that a vote was taken in the UN General Assembly condeming America's embargo against Cuba.
The vote was 184-4. The four were the United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, and Palau. Micronesia didn't even vote with the U.S. and abstained.
Japan voted against us. Germany voted against us. The Philippines voted against us. Poland voted against us. Mexico and Canada voted against us. The UK, Iceland, Brazil, and Singapore voted against us.
And while Israel voted with us, Israeli firms are nonetheless managing citrus groves in Cuba.
Hillary Clinton has unfortunately said that she would continue the Bush administration's policies on Cuba -- and that there are more differences between her and Barack Obama on the family-damaging restrictions on travel and trade than between her and George W. Bush.
I hope that she finds a way to change her mind -- because we need a NEW direction in US foreign policy not hug-sessions with the past, particularly policies that have clearly failed not only recently but over four decades.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
William Hartung is utterly right that Hillary Clinton "should not be spared some tough questioning during the primary process." No one is sacrosanct. No one who can't face the arguments head-on should be running for president.
That her campaign is raking in military-industrial dollars is surely cause for apprehension--though remember, those dollars would flow to other candidates if she weren't in the race. Military-company investments are cause for apprehension period, wherever they flow.
That said, frankly, Senator Clinton's foreign-and-military stance baffles me.
When Paul Krugman writes things like "even the tacit appeals to race are losing their effectiveness. And that’s why I think the movement conservative era is just about over, I fear that he is being much too optimistic.
I am late to this discussion, but I hope not too late. I've been musing about this issue of race and the welfare state myself for some time and find it one of the most interesting topics, among many, in Paul Krugman's excellent book.
JERUSALEM–In an interview published in today’s New York Times, Senator Barack Obama revealed his latest proposal on how his administration would address the continued threat from Iran to the United States.
The Illinois Senator should expect strong criticism from his opponents in both parties for a perceived weakness in confronting the Islamic Republic. But unlike the dogmatic approach of empty economic and military threats, Obama’s plan boldly embraces a course of action that has a much greater chance of achieving America’s two most strategic objectives in Iran: ensuring the Ayatollahs do not obtain a nuclear capability and the ultimate collapse of the Islamic regime.
You know the problem with porn? It's so common that it's lost the ability to shock, so Tom has to resort to condemning porn in order to start a fight at a liberal website. How dare he say such a thing? It's an insult to liberal values!
I'll leave it to Tom to discuss the substantive differences between promoting legal censorship and just acknowledging that a lot of folks think too much porn-- and excessively large Big Gulps -- aren't good for our society, even if they don't want to ban either.
But it is interesting that some liberals condemn religiously-based OPINIONS the way conservatives often condemn sexual imagery or other libertine values. You get the sense that some liberals aren't really looking for a live-and-let-live society but to clone themselves and their values everywhere.
Robert Kagan’s argument that “free elections come first” (Washington Post, Oct 28) is based on an elementary logical fallacy: that two negatives make one positive. Kagan shows that sheer economic development does not pave the way to democratization (see China). Furthermore, he demonstrates that the rule of law—by which he means a fair, even handed law, not the one that protects people from violence, terror, and anarchy (see China)—cannot be established in non-democratic nations. However, it does not follow, as he suggests, that free elections per se can produce a liberal democracy.
First, my apologies to everyone for going AWOL. I have been really, really sick – and yet obliged to make book tour stops; so it’s been a series of adrenaline bursts followed by episodes of collapse, with no energy to spare for this forum.
Let me at least try to respond, finally, to the comments.
Bruce Bartlett’s attempt to explain away Reagan’s Philadelphia speech as an innocent misunderstanding would be more plausible if it were out of character for Reagan’s career. But tacit appeals to racial politics – often taking the form of tall stories about welfare cheats, culminating in the Cadillac-driving welfare queen -- were, in fact, a staple of Reagan’s political career. It’s worth noting that there’s a proto-version of that story, in the form of something some judge supposedly told Reagan about a woman who, etc., etc. even in the 1964 speech “A time for choosing.”
Am I a scary guy? I am a progressive candidate for Congress whose values have been shaped by my religious faith. I have even been an active part of the progressive faith movement since 2004, and my faith has called me to work on human rights issues in some of the roughest spots on the planet. Yet some (but certainly not all) of the great reactions to yesterday’s conversation about a culture of greed suggest some believe there is a contradiction between being progressive and talking publicly about religion. This tees up today’s post about whether there is a role for a progressive religious voice in American political discourse. The answer to this rests on two questions – whether there is any role for religion and morality in political discourse and, if so, what this progressive religious movement stands for?
There has been a lot of hype and hysteria about the rise of progressive faith groups, but this movement is still finding its voice. It is a collection of mostly progressive, interfaith, issue groups that accept the separation of church and state, but not of politics and ethics. There are two key components of this movement: (1) issues crusaders who want to shift the moral conversation towards poverty, peace, and protection of the planet; and (2) the cultural/spiritual prophetics, like Bill Moyers, Jim Forbes and Michael Lerner, who believe there is something deeply off kilter in our culture that needs to be addressed. This group tends to push beyond the Iraq war itself to questions of American exceptionalism, look beyond the health care crisis to a culture of go-it-alone, and look beyond FISA to a culture of instant gratification that enables our leaders to sacrifice over 200 years of commitment to liberty in the name of a short-term political payoff.
I half agree with Todd Gitlin's recent post on the unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton by some on the left -- it's not like she's a neo-con, after all.
Hillary Clinton is tough, smart, and resilient. She's so much better than anyone the Republicans will put up that it's not even worth discussing.
That being said, there are considerable differences between her and her two top rivals, particularly in the realm of foreign policy -- differences that are worth discussing.
Congresswoman Jane Harman has been pushing a higher wall on FISA than most of her Democratic colleagues because she doesn't trust the administration's line on why it wants to wiretap without warrant massive numbers of Americans. She got duped by the administration (and admits it) on its intelligence before the Iraq War and thinks now that we should have very, very high standards before giving the administration powers that no presidential administration has had before.
Now, Shane Harris of National Journal has a huge story on the interaction between telecom firm Qwest and the National Security Agency in which the alleged reasons for the government wanting access to massive call records was not to chase down terrorists but to look for individual and foreign government computer network hackers.
Not that anyone reading this has doubted my warnings here, here, and here about what Rupert Murdoch’s control of The Wall Street Journal will bring, but can you imagine a Murdoch newspaper running today’s front-page Journal story by Nicholas Zamiska exposing the perils of health-care privatization in China?
Everyone knows that, unlike today's still-pre-Rupert Journal, Murdoch’s media have kow-towed so shamelessly to China’s ugly Communist Party that he dropped BBC reporting from his satellite service there and cancelled his HarperCollins house’s publication of books Chinese officials found offensive, such as the memoirs of the last British governor of Hong Kong.
Just imagine how Murdoch would feel if one of his reporters exposed a scandal in health care that raised doubts about privatization – especially if it revealed what today’s Journal does.
The incomparable Digby will be hosting a Firedoglake book salon for The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing on Saturday, 11/3, from 5 to 7 p.m., Eastern. I hope denizens of tpmcafe will join us.
A couple of years ago, a cable channel was launching re-runs of Dallas under the tagline “J.R.: The Original Bling.” This almost quaint attempt at marketing crossover struck me as a sad statement about the once extreme culture of selfishness and materialism that has become mainstreamed today. While culture wars rage over sexual politics, child rearing and the teaching of evolution, there is one thing that the urban Blues (Jay-Z) and the country Reds (J.R.) can agree on, "greed," in the famous words of Gordon Gecko, "is good."
I believe that America is facing a culture crisis. Our national soul has been infected with a virus of selfishness. This selfishness takes on many forms, most commonly greed, extreme materialism, and instant gratification. But it is not the obvious individual cases (Tyco’s Kozlowski, Bush’s Executive Privelege, internet pornography) that cause our national ills but rather the fact that they each are outgrowths of a culture that has lost its commitment to the common good. The abandonment of the common good is the central thread in our failed politics.
She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity.
I don't know the temperature of Maureen Dowd's eyes, or what she wants, but this morning she did break the pundit record for number of distinct irrelevancies in a single sentence.
A few questions: Is it is preferable to be hot-eyed about wanting power (see: Rudy)? Is it possible to do any good in the actual world without power? If you want power, what's the alternative to raising money? "Turning everything about her life into a commodity"--come on! I'm not enamored of the junior senator from New York's prose style, but hasn't the junior senator from Illinois published two best-sellers, and hasn't John Edwards let the world in on his wife's illness, and was it HRC who sold rights to reports on her husband's sex life to Newsweek?
As noted in a Washington Post article earlier this week, a vicious war between Mexican drug cartels that has claimed 4,000 lives in the past year and one-half -- more than the level of U.S. deaths over the past four years-plus in Iraq -- is being fueled almost entirely by guns purchased in the United States. Most of the weapons -- which include AK-47s and grenade launchers -- are bought from unlicensed gun dealers in Arizona and smuggled back across the border.
Immigrants in, guns out -- guess which flow is drawing all the outrage?
I'm not sure where I come down on the issue of compromise on ENDA at the federal level, since my general position is that federal policy is usually so institutionally compromised by filibusters, holding out for perfection is usually doomed. But I did want to note that E.J. significantly downplayed success at the state level where she said only 13 states had prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.
In fact, 13 states ban discrimination against gays and lesbians AND ban discrimination based on gender identity/expression, while another seven states just ban discrimination against gays and lesbians. And many of these are our largest states, so over 43% of the American population live in states where discrimination against gays and lesbians is banned-- and 30% of the population live in states that ban discrimination based on gender identity.
After months of delays and anticipation, House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel (D-NY) finally unveiled his self-described "mother of all tax bills" last week, the Tax Reduction and Reform Act. The revenue-neutral trillion-dollar bill proposes the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), a package of "offsets" to pay for it, and a progressive redistribution of the regular income tax.
The first test of the bill's viability comes tomorrow, when the Ways and Means Committee considers a small, short-term piece of the bill, the Temporary Tax Relief Act. The bill consists of a one-year "patch" to keep 19 million more taxpayers from having to pay the AMT and a one-year extension of various popular tax credits and deductions for R&D, state and local taxes, teachers' supplies expenses, and other goodies.
Sorry about the headline, which I couldn’t resist. It’s a toned-down version of an old gay pride chant that I’ve always loved. (The original uses nastier terms, usually offset with an adorable kickline.)
Our topic today: Are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) groups being unreasonable when they insist that ENDA—the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act—must cover not just sexual orientation but also gender identity? Is Barney Frank simply being a political pragmatist when he insists that he can only pass a bill to cover lesbians and gay men, the group that America has grown to know and love, and not also transgendered folks, which lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin insists is necessary as well? (I’ll explain the terms later in this post.)
No. ENDA “lite” isn’t more “pragmatic”; it’s scarcely better than no ENDA at all.
Each year, developing nations spend $500 million to educate health care workers who leave to work in North America, Western Europe and South Asia. In other words, as the most recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (October 24-31) puts it: “developing nations are subsidizing healthcare in wealthier nations.”
And we are not talking about a small clutch of physicians: close to 25 percent of U.S. doctors are foreign-born. According to JAMA, “These unchecked flows of health workers leave regions with the greatest health care needs the fewest workers…37% of the world’s health care workers live in the Americas, predominantly in the United States and Canada , yet these countries carry only 10% of the global disease burden. In contrast, Africa is home to only 3% of the world’s healthcare workers, yet it has 24% of the global burden of disease.”
Yet as the American Medical Association points out, we don’t have enough home-grown physicians to serve our needs here. Some 35 million Americans live in areas where there are not enough doctors. Nationwide, primary care doctors are in short supply, in large part because they are paid so much less than specialists. Medical students who know that they are going to be graduating with $100,000 in loans report that that they just can’t afford to become internists or family doctors.
I was very interested by the response to my post yesterday. The ambivalence many progressives feel about voicing their convictions is frequently based on the following concern "I believe this, but will others? Wouldn't it make more tactical sense to take a position people already agree with, such as 'immediate withdrawal'?" When we think this way, we forget two critical things about polls, opinions and political power. One, there is a difference between what people say they are for when given a limited set of established options and what really gets them excited and committed to action, and two, that what we say as leaders and community members creates what the established options are.
I was talking to a small business owner in Rocky Mount the other day about Iraq. He considers himself an independent voter and is furious about the Iraq war. He echoed many of other people from my district– which covers very red and very blue counties – by saying that he wants us “out of Iraq,” but he was more despondent than excited. Then I spoke with him about the NEW plan for Iraq proposed in yesterday’s blog – a plan that includes withdrawal but only as a piece of jump starting a new political solution. The entire tone of the conversation changed and he was fired up. By proposing a solution that would truly set things right rather than just retreat to a less awful alternative, conviction politics can transform the debate.
Of the roughly 21,000 words spoken in last night’s Democratic debate, here are a few that weren’t uttered once: “conservative,” “conservatism,” “ideology,” and “right-wing.” (“The right” was used a lot, but only as a modifier for “track,” “signal,” and “idea.”). In the October 21 Republican debate, in contrast, the word “liberal” was used a total of seven times by four different candidates. For example, Mitt Romney said, “And, you know, Democrats also love America. As Ronald Reagan used to say, it's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that what they know is wrong.”
To continue to shy away from attacking conservative ideology, which is the root cause of almost all of the Bush administration’s failures, amounts to political malpractice.
Last week the business press reported that Amazon.com had record third quarter profits as its stock price approached dot.com bubble peaks. We should all be joining in the celebration of Amazon’s success, because as taxpayers we deserve most of the credit.
The business press has written numerous stories explaining how Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and CEO, is a truly brilliant businessman. This may be true, but the secret of his success is not in the futuristic world of the Internet, rather it’s in the old-fashioned world of tax avoidance. The key to Amazon’s profits is that its customers do not have to pay sales taxes on their purchases. In effect, Amazon has been allowed to set itself up as a virtual tax-free shopping zone.
More than six years since the terrorist attacks on 9-11 the intelligence community continues to employ a substandard analytical practice that virtually guarantees shoddy and inaccurate analysis. What am I talking about? An analyst within the CIA (or DIA or INR) who writes an article for the Presidential Daily Brief or other community wide daily intelligence brief is not currently required to coordinate with analysts outside of their organization. What’s so bad about that? The failure to coordinate and obtain the clearance of other analysts prevents policymakers from getting the best analysis and information available. Perhaps this helps explain the mess we encountered with the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Sorry to sound like an old guy, but I need to explain what I mean in talking about “coordination”.
On Paul’s discussion about race and American politics, though I am in general agreement with him when it comes to black-white issues and their implications for our politics, past and present, a friend of mine recently raised a question that, frankly, had me stumped: Do the polarities that result in whites voting more Republican the blacker their state (county, other jurisdiction) also apply to polarization between (non-Hispanic) whites and Hispanics?
I think Paul Krugman is wrong--or at least incomplete.
Back in the 1920s, you see, there were a lot of northern liberals who voted Republican because Lincoln had freed the slaves (they were called "Progressives") and a lot of southern conservatives who voted Democratic because Lincoln had freed the slaves ("Dixiecrats"). The Great Crash and the Great Depression broke the allegiance of northern Republican liberals, so from 1933 on northern liberals vote Democratic. Southern conservatives, however, by and large continue to vote Democratic until the 1980s or so.
I will have more to say later about the race issue in American politics—as it happens, I have a book on this topic coming out shortly. But first I want to address a specific charge that Paul has repeated—that Ronald Reagan was some sort of crypto racist because he attacked “welfare queens” and gave his first major speech after receiving the Republican nomination in 1980 at Philadelphia, Mississippi, where some civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964.
The speech at the Neshoba County Fair is often used as proof positive that Reagan was courting the votes of racist Southerners by using code phrases like “states’ rights.” Indeed, Reagan did use that term in his Neshoba speech. However, if one actually listens to Reagan’s speech—available in MP3 format here—it is pretty clear that there was no winking and nodding going on. It was a standard campaign stump speech that was heavy on jokes about Jimmy Carter, concerns about inflation and unemployment, foreign policy, and the evils of bureaucracy.
I hope folks read Tom Perriello's post carefully on how Dems can use a moral argument for withdrawing troops from Iraq-- and think about how amazing it would be to have someone like him replace a neanderthal like Virgil Goode from that Southern Virginia district.
Full disclosure-- Tom is a good friend of mine but he is also one of those folks who walks the walk on international justice. For the last few years, when he wasn't helping launch various progressive religous left efforts (Faithful America, Catholics for the Common Good) or launching his global MoveOn-like avaaz.org, he's been spending months and even years in Sierra Leone, Darfur and Afghanistan, talking to regular folks about how to restore sanity to lives racked by violence and oppression. He missed attending my wedding because he had previous engagements in the back hills of Afghanistan interviewing warlords and their victims, while thinking about a moral approach to counter-insurgency.
I saw a new Zogby poll last night showing that a majority of Americans would support a US military strike in Iran to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon – in short, preemptive strike on Iran. This is the result of failing to make the core case for why President Bush has made us less safe. Forget the peripheral bits, President Bush and the Congress – including my opponent Virgil Goode (R-VA) – made the decision to subvert over 200 years of American strategic and moral wisdom about security through legitimacy and validate the idea that might makes right. Our failure to make that case, resorting to the safer arguments about mismanagement and bad intelligence, leaves us playing defense again as the drumbeats crescendo.
Before applying conviction politics to Iraq, it is worth looking at an example of where the international community pulled off regime change in the right way – Liberia. The proudest moment of my life was playing a role in forcing Charles Taylor from power in Liberia. I served as Special Advisor and Spokesperson to the prosecutor of the Special Court that indicted Taylor – an indictment which became the lever and the legitimizer forcing Taylor from power. I have seen the elation on the faces of amputees and survivors of systematic sexual violence after seeing the mastermind of their torment locked up. And I have seen that when a strategy combines legitimacy, aggressive diplomacy and a credible threat, we can make the world a better and more secure place.
It has long been a forgone conclusion that the Democrats own Big Labor's loyalty. Well, maybe not anymore. This New York Times article describes how Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), has been putting issues above partisanship. When Democratic officials pursue policies unfriendly to SEIU's members, the union has not been afraid to go after them. For instance, SEIU fought New York Governor Eliot Spitzer after he proposed large cuts in health care. The union also opposed the re-election of Democratic incumbents in Chicago who supported the Mayor's veto of a bill to raise pay for retail workers.
was hosted by Sinclair Broadcasting's David Smith. I'm glad Clarence has written his book; it's part of the record. But he has to recuse himself if and when any case against Sinclair reaches the Supreme Court, and if this upcoming election is like the last one, Sinclair will deserve to be a defendant on various grounds.
One of the most infuriating habits of latter-day conservative "analysts" of national security issues is the "emboldening our enemies" theme. You know: Anyone who disagrees with a policy of Maximum Violence in dealing with Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, Islamic radicalism, or presumably, Original Sin, is "emboldening our enemies" and is objectively a traitor.
Numbed as we all are by this sort of rhetoric, it takes a lot to stir fresh outrage. But like an electric cattle prod plunged into my morning bathwater, Deroy Murdock's syndicated column today did the trick. It was entitled "Terrorists Prefer Hillary," and subtitled "And They'd Rather See Rudy Dead Than President." And it led me to wonder: Why don't we just hold a referendum of Islamic terrorists, and let them choose our next president?
I am running for Congress against Virgil Goode in Virginia's Fifth District—and the reason might surprise you.
First a word about the race. The Fifth includes 22 mostly rural counties in central and Southside Virginia, stretching from Charlottesville down to the North Carolina border. Mine is an area hit hard by factory closings and lost farming jobs. The incumbent Republican Virgil Goode came to national prominence for his remarks about Rep. Ellison being sworn in on the Qu’ran. An ex-populist, he has repeatedly voted against SCHIP, backed credit card and pharmaceutical companies, and supported the Iraq surge. I believe the key to victory is conviction politics.
Hi everyone – great to be here on TPM.
I thought, for this introductory post (filed, of course, from a convenient Starbucks), that I’d focus on one of the key themes in The Conscience of a Liberal – the central role of race in understanding both what happened to America over the past 30 years, and its implications for the future.
Basically, the book is an attempt to understand two puzzles about what happened to the America I grew up – the broadly middle-class society of the postwar generation.
A week ago I wrote of the death of conservative economic policy. Its central, if not sole, platform—tax cuts—simply failed to provide the needed oxygen to keep this flimsy policy set alive. Let us use this AM’s news to hammer a few more nails in the coffin.
Welcome to TPMCafe's Book Club table. This week we're hosting a discussion of Paul Krugman's new book, The Conscience of a Liberal.
In his book, Krugman argues that the modern ideology-driven Republican Party has, through advancing the interests of the wealthy over those of the rest of America, led to the return of gaping income inequality in the United States. This Book Club will focus on his argument for the centrality of race in understanding modern American politics.
Joining him in the discussion will be TPM founder Josh Marshall, popular blogger Digby, Tom Schaller, Bruce Bartlett and TPMCafe Mark Schmitt.
Previous Book Club discussions have covered the work of Thomas Frank, Anthony Shadid, Larry Diamond, George Packer, Ivo Daalder/James Lindsay, Robert Dreyfuss, Chris Mooney, Gene Sperling, Gershom Gorenberg, Peter Beinart, Kevin Phillips, Sidney Blumenthal, Reed Hundt, Anne-Marie Slaughter, John Ikenberry, Jonathan Cohn, Daniel Gross, Steven Cook, Chris Hayes, Josh Kurlantzick, Glenn Greenwald, Todd Gitlin, Jonathan Chait, Greg Anrig, Jr., Matt Bai, Katha Pollitt, and Michael Shellenberger, Ted Nordhaus and Daniel Brook.
Welcome to Table for One, the guest-blogging section at TPMCafe.
This week we are joined by Tom Perriello, who is running for Congress in Virginia's 5th congressional district. In addition to working with theInternational Center for Transitional Justice, National Council of Churches of Christ, AfghanistanWatch and The Century Foundation, he also co-founded Avaaz.org and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and helped launch FaithfulAmerica.org.
See earlier Table for One guest-blogs:
Jacob Soboroff, Sam Quinones, Jeffrey Toobin, Ben Naimark-Rowse, Charlie Savage, Congressman Steve Kagen, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Scott Winship, Robert Hormats, Bill McKibben, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Sen. John Edwards, the ACLU's Anthony Romero, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Andrew Rasiej, Gov. Tom Vilsack,Gen. Wesley Clark, Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sen. Russ Feingold.
June 30-July 4
|
July 7-11
|
July 14-18
|
July 21-25
|
August 4-9
|
August 11-15
|
August 25-29
|
|
