NOVEMBER 30, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
DESTROYING THE MIDDLE CLASS
If you examine the focus of right-wing think tanks, you have to conclude they are determined to destroy a viable middle class in the United States. The whole movement of right-wingers has been to give more power to corporations and the very rich, to destroy unions, to hold down wages, to export jobs to other countries, to rip apart the social safety net, and to shift taxes to the middle class. This article by Charles B. Rangel and Phil Angelides is at www.latimes.com:
MOST AMERICANS think tax reform should be about fairness and simplification. But for the right-wing ideologues who dominate tax policy decisions in the Bush administration, the goals are different. They want to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and put pressure on states such as California and New York to shrink critical public services. The recommendations by President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform to eliminate the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes, and to cap the deduction for home mortgage interest, are a big step in that direction.
The right has long targeted the deduction for state and local taxes. "Eliminating [it] would … help control wasteful spending and high tax rates at the state and local levels," writes Daniel J. Mitchell, of the Heritage Foundation, who points out that large urban states such as California, New York and New Jersey get significant benefits from the provision. The idea, according to conservative tax expert Bruce Bartlett, "is to change governmental behavior by encouraging state tax cuts, contracting out and privatizing state services, and shrinking of the public sector."
THE ROTTEN REPUBLICAN PARTY
The confession of Republican Congressman "Duke" Cunningham to taking over two million dollars in bribes adds just another corrupt Republican to the list. David Safavian, White House procurement officer, has already been arrested for his involvement with super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is under investigation for insider trading. Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's guy, has been indicted in connection with the Valerie Plame leak. Republicans pushed through a prescription drug bill that is a disaster for most of us, but pays off handsomely for drug companies. The recent energy bill was loaded with pork for Republican friends. Now a budget has been passed that shafts the poor and gives even more tax cuts to the rich. This article by Bob Burnett is at www.commondreams.org:
A pundit once described Velveeta cheese spread as, "the triumph of technology over taste." The same wit might depict America's ruling Republican elite as, "the triumph of greed over morality." Early in the morning of November 18th, the Republican majority in the House passed a budget reconciliation bill that graphically illustrates the extent of their depravity.
The legislation contains budget cuts of $50 billion. Reductions that drastically impact programs for America's neediest citizens, particularly Medicaid and food stamps. A companion act features $70 billion in tax cuts for America's wealthy. Before the strictly party-line vote on the reconciliation bill, the National Council of Churches pled with every member of Congress. "The role of the government is to protect its people and work for the common good. This is not the time for a budget reconciliation process. To do so is not only unjust, it's a sin. It violates all the fundamental Christian principles of loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor and showing mercyŠ How is it that we show mercy for oil millionaires and not hurricane survivors?"(http://www.ncccusa.org/news/051020BudgetCutPlans.html)
EVOLUTION AND SOCIAL DARWINISM
Many of the strongest opponents of the biological theory of evolution ("Darwinism" if you will) are the strongest proponents of an economic theory called Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was the brainchild of a guy named Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinists are the people who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." They believe the economic elite got there by being smarter, harder working, more virtuous, or maybe even being favored by God. I guess they haven't examined the lives of the very rich very closely. Robert Reich writes about the inconsistency of people who believe in biblical creationism and Social Darwinism at the same time at www.commondreams.org:
There is, of course, an ideological inconsistency here. If mankind did not evolve according to Darwinist logic, but began instead with Adam and Eve, then it seems unlikely societies evolve according to the survival-of-the-fittest logic of social Darwinism. By the same token, if you believe one’s economic status is the consequence of an automatic process of natural selection, then, presumably, you’d believe that human beings represent the culmination of a similar process, over the ages. That the conservative mind endures such cognitive dissonance is stunning, but not nearly as remarkable as the repeated attempts of conservative mouthpieces such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to convince readers the conservative movement is intellectually coherent.
The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
NOVEMBER 29, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH OBLIVIOUS TO REALITY
George W. Bush has been quoted as saying that God told him to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. You have to wonder if Bush is listening to voices that tell him things are going just great in Iraq and that "democracy is on the march." Maybe we could get some psychiatrist to declare Bush mentally unfit to be president. This article by MICHAEL McAULIFF is at www.nydailynews.com:
New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh said that Bush is motivated in part by religious fervor and that he believes the war must be judged on a time line of decades, not years. "He's a utopian, you could say, in a world where maybe he doesn't have all the facts and all the information he needs and isn't able to change," Hersh said on CNN yesterday.
"I'll tell you, the people that talk to me now are essentially frightened because they're not sure how you get to this guy."
Hersh said such tunnel vision helps explain why the Bush administration went ballistic when Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam War hero, recently declared the war is tanking and it's time to bring the troops home.
OUR TARNISHED REPUTATION
Before he assumed the presidency, JFK gave a great speech in which he talked about the United States being like a city on the hill. We were the shining light of democracy and liberty. With this vile war in Iraq and all the barbarism associated with it we have tarnished that shining reputation. We have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including countless children. We have tortured. We have used a truly despicable weapon like white phosphorus. The New York Times takes a look in this editorial at www.nytimes.com:
Let us pause and count the ways the conduct of the war in Iraq has damaged America's image and needlessly endangered the lives of those in the military. First, multilateralism was tossed aside. Then the post-invasion fiasco muddied the reputation of military planners and caused unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth undermined the credibility of United States intelligence and President Bush himself, and the abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high ground.
Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America's credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.
THE HEART OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY
The single greatest teaching I've derived from Jesus Christ is to do to others as you would have do to you. It's very simple, but so very difficult. It's not unique to Christianity, of course. But isn't it amazing that so many political and religious leaders in the United States are so quick to toss the Golden Rule overboard because the Golden Rule puts too many obstacles in their path to power. True believers in the Golden Rule wouldn't launch unnecessary wars, torture people, or divert resources to the rich while depriving the weakest and most vulnerable in society. In this article Andrew Bard Schmookler talks about how the ruling powers in the United States disregard real Christianity. The article is at www.opednews.com:
If one knew nothing of the Gospels, but instead only learned of Christian values from our current ruling forces, one would think that Jesus’ moral concerns focused on sex. But the red letters in my Bible show that he had almost nothing to say about sex. The moral issue that seems to have concerned him most involved not such private matters but rather how the rich and powerful treat the poor and vulnerable. “The least of these, my brethren.”
For him, it seems, the greatest sins were indifference to the plight of the suffering and hypocrisy and pride in proclaiming one’s own righteousness. A truly Christian morality would therefore be a huge obstacle to the abuse of power. That’s why, ever since Christendom first arose, unprincipled power has worked to pervert Christian morals. And central among these perversions has been power’s turning the moral spotlight away from themselves onto the sexual conduct of private individuals.
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH OBLIVIOUS TO REALITY
George W. Bush has been quoted as saying that God told him to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. You have to wonder if Bush is listening to voices that tell him things are going just great in Iraq and that "democracy is on the march." Maybe we could get some psychiatrist to declare Bush mentally unfit to be president. This article by MICHAEL McAULIFF is at www.nydailynews.com:
New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh said that Bush is motivated in part by religious fervor and that he believes the war must be judged on a time line of decades, not years. "He's a utopian, you could say, in a world where maybe he doesn't have all the facts and all the information he needs and isn't able to change," Hersh said on CNN yesterday.
"I'll tell you, the people that talk to me now are essentially frightened because they're not sure how you get to this guy."
Hersh said such tunnel vision helps explain why the Bush administration went ballistic when Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam War hero, recently declared the war is tanking and it's time to bring the troops home.
OUR TARNISHED REPUTATION
Before he assumed the presidency, JFK gave a great speech in which he talked about the United States being like a city on the hill. We were the shining light of democracy and liberty. With this vile war in Iraq and all the barbarism associated with it we have tarnished that shining reputation. We have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including countless children. We have tortured. We have used a truly despicable weapon like white phosphorus. The New York Times takes a look in this editorial at www.nytimes.com:
Let us pause and count the ways the conduct of the war in Iraq has damaged America's image and needlessly endangered the lives of those in the military. First, multilateralism was tossed aside. Then the post-invasion fiasco muddied the reputation of military planners and caused unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth undermined the credibility of United States intelligence and President Bush himself, and the abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high ground.
Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America's credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.
THE HEART OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY
The single greatest teaching I've derived from Jesus Christ is to do to others as you would have do to you. It's very simple, but so very difficult. It's not unique to Christianity, of course. But isn't it amazing that so many political and religious leaders in the United States are so quick to toss the Golden Rule overboard because the Golden Rule puts too many obstacles in their path to power. True believers in the Golden Rule wouldn't launch unnecessary wars, torture people, or divert resources to the rich while depriving the weakest and most vulnerable in society. In this article Andrew Bard Schmookler talks about how the ruling powers in the United States disregard real Christianity. The article is at www.opednews.com:
If one knew nothing of the Gospels, but instead only learned of Christian values from our current ruling forces, one would think that Jesus’ moral concerns focused on sex. But the red letters in my Bible show that he had almost nothing to say about sex. The moral issue that seems to have concerned him most involved not such private matters but rather how the rich and powerful treat the poor and vulnerable. “The least of these, my brethren.”
For him, it seems, the greatest sins were indifference to the plight of the suffering and hypocrisy and pride in proclaiming one’s own righteousness. A truly Christian morality would therefore be a huge obstacle to the abuse of power. That’s why, ever since Christendom first arose, unprincipled power has worked to pervert Christian morals. And central among these perversions has been power’s turning the moral spotlight away from themselves onto the sexual conduct of private individuals.
Monday, November 28, 2005
NOVEMBER 28, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
A LOOK AT THE MOSLEM ENLIGHTENMENT
It's fashionable in the West to call our way civilized and to condemn the barbarism we see in the Moslem world. But it's not accurate and certainly not true to the historical record. At a time when Western civilizations were engaged in savagery there was an enlightenment in the Moslem world that deserves our attention and respect. This article by Pierre Tristam is at www.commondreams.org:
What was unique about Islam's early and middle period was its great tolerance for people of other faiths, its love and wealth of learning, its antipathy for dogma, its realization of pluralism -- in the great Abassid caliphates of Baghdad from the 9th to the 12th centuries, in Spain during the same period, in India during the 16th and early part of the 17th centuries. It's possible to see the Muslim Enlightenment literally as bookends, in time and geography, with Baghdad in the early period and the reign of Akbar the Great in the 16th and 17th centuries in India, who lived up to a famous verse in the Koran that speaks for all the potential pluralism in Islam: "There can be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" (which is actually a retelling of what Jesus said to his followers: "The truth will make you free.")
Akbar's enlightened reign in India coincided with Europe's bloodiest age of religious bigotry and warfare, when the Inquisition was murdering Jews in Spain and Catholics and Protestants were murdering each other everywhere else, when beheadings were the preferred method of Calvinists in sleepy Geneva for adulterous men, when Europe was to know nine wars of religion in three decades in a warm-up to the massacres and holocausts of the 17th century. The roads of religious intolerance are paved with the bones of that occasional oxymoron we know of as western civilization. And those same roads are conveniently forgotten by those who would point to a place like the Middle East and say things like, "Those people have been at each other's throats for ever." Not quite true. Any notion that the Enlightenment was a western invention, or that barbarism is an eastern specialty, is a bit misguided.
FORMER POWELL AIDE BLASTS ADMINISTRATION
Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has some acerbic comments about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Wilkerson said the attitude in the administration was that the president is all powerful and can do anything he wants. This article by Anne Gearan is at www.sfgate.com:
In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
RIGHT-WING ARROGANCE GAVE US IRAQ
Among the most asinine lines from the career of actor Sylvester Stallone is his portrayal of a former Vietnam combatant demanding, "Are they going to let us win this time?" You know, Vietnam was winnable except for those awful war protesters and dissenters on the left who just wouldn't let the military do its job. Right-wingers don't have the luxury of blaming the anti-war movement this time around. They rushed into Iraq despite warnings from all over the world, but there was no meaningful anti-war movement to stop them from doing what they wanted to do. The U.S. swept into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush declared victory, and then the real war began. This article by Jim Sleeper at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Iraq is different, the warmakers insisted, but they were right in ways they never intended. They were so successful at deflecting and silencing every warning or doubt that they had no one to blame but themselves when, instead of being conveyed through grateful, flower-strewing throngs on June 30, 2004, Ambassador Paul Bremer III had to be rushed out of the Green Zone two days early, as his American successors may have to be with the desert equivalent of Vietnam "boat people" clinging to their heels.
Nor could Republicans charge that an American anti-war movement had "forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs," as Vietnam warriors accused liberals of doing in the 1960s. This time, no Jane Fonda has gone over to visit the enemy and subvert American efforts to win hearts and minds. The Iraq war masterminds have done all of that, all by themselves. It was they who insisted we wouldn't need more troops than we sent, let alone a draft or fewer tax cuts. It was they who developed the rules and rationales and "culture" that allowed the Abu Ghraib abuses and the systematic outsourcing of torture to gain ground.
IMPEACH BUSH
A LOOK AT THE MOSLEM ENLIGHTENMENT
It's fashionable in the West to call our way civilized and to condemn the barbarism we see in the Moslem world. But it's not accurate and certainly not true to the historical record. At a time when Western civilizations were engaged in savagery there was an enlightenment in the Moslem world that deserves our attention and respect. This article by Pierre Tristam is at www.commondreams.org:
What was unique about Islam's early and middle period was its great tolerance for people of other faiths, its love and wealth of learning, its antipathy for dogma, its realization of pluralism -- in the great Abassid caliphates of Baghdad from the 9th to the 12th centuries, in Spain during the same period, in India during the 16th and early part of the 17th centuries. It's possible to see the Muslim Enlightenment literally as bookends, in time and geography, with Baghdad in the early period and the reign of Akbar the Great in the 16th and 17th centuries in India, who lived up to a famous verse in the Koran that speaks for all the potential pluralism in Islam: "There can be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" (which is actually a retelling of what Jesus said to his followers: "The truth will make you free.")
Akbar's enlightened reign in India coincided with Europe's bloodiest age of religious bigotry and warfare, when the Inquisition was murdering Jews in Spain and Catholics and Protestants were murdering each other everywhere else, when beheadings were the preferred method of Calvinists in sleepy Geneva for adulterous men, when Europe was to know nine wars of religion in three decades in a warm-up to the massacres and holocausts of the 17th century. The roads of religious intolerance are paved with the bones of that occasional oxymoron we know of as western civilization. And those same roads are conveniently forgotten by those who would point to a place like the Middle East and say things like, "Those people have been at each other's throats for ever." Not quite true. Any notion that the Enlightenment was a western invention, or that barbarism is an eastern specialty, is a bit misguided.
FORMER POWELL AIDE BLASTS ADMINISTRATION
Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has some acerbic comments about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Wilkerson said the attitude in the administration was that the president is all powerful and can do anything he wants. This article by Anne Gearan is at www.sfgate.com:
In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
RIGHT-WING ARROGANCE GAVE US IRAQ
Among the most asinine lines from the career of actor Sylvester Stallone is his portrayal of a former Vietnam combatant demanding, "Are they going to let us win this time?" You know, Vietnam was winnable except for those awful war protesters and dissenters on the left who just wouldn't let the military do its job. Right-wingers don't have the luxury of blaming the anti-war movement this time around. They rushed into Iraq despite warnings from all over the world, but there was no meaningful anti-war movement to stop them from doing what they wanted to do. The U.S. swept into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush declared victory, and then the real war began. This article by Jim Sleeper at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Iraq is different, the warmakers insisted, but they were right in ways they never intended. They were so successful at deflecting and silencing every warning or doubt that they had no one to blame but themselves when, instead of being conveyed through grateful, flower-strewing throngs on June 30, 2004, Ambassador Paul Bremer III had to be rushed out of the Green Zone two days early, as his American successors may have to be with the desert equivalent of Vietnam "boat people" clinging to their heels.
Nor could Republicans charge that an American anti-war movement had "forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs," as Vietnam warriors accused liberals of doing in the 1960s. This time, no Jane Fonda has gone over to visit the enemy and subvert American efforts to win hearts and minds. The Iraq war masterminds have done all of that, all by themselves. It was they who insisted we wouldn't need more troops than we sent, let alone a draft or fewer tax cuts. It was they who developed the rules and rationales and "culture" that allowed the Abu Ghraib abuses and the systematic outsourcing of torture to gain ground.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
NOVEMBER 27, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
CHRIS WALLACE: BUSH SHILL
Chris Wallace is on the Fox Network and, what a surprise, was spinning history for Bush. Wallace had the absolute gall to claim that Bush never tried to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Bush has tried to blame Saddam Hussein for almost everything except original sin and he'll probably get around to that. This item comes from thinkprogress.org:
Wallace focused on a single statement President Bush made on September 25, 2002. (“[Y]ou can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”) But that statement was part of a series of statements that intentionally and explicitly linked Saddam and al Qaeda in the lead up to war. For example, this statement by Bush on February 8, 2003:
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.
Virtually none of that was true. The administration’s hand picked weapons inspector, David Kay, concluded “We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.” But to pretend that President Bush never made an effort to link Saddam and al-Qaeda is incredibly irresponsible, even for Fox.
PENTAGON SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS
We've fallen a very long way in the past few years. We went from a country that had a Bill of Rights that actually meant something to a country that is giving more and more power to the federal government to deny civil liberties. This all started because nineteen criminals found a gaping hole in U.S. airport security and pulled off a horrific suicide attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was an attack that should have been prevented, and would have been prevented with a competent administration in power. That attack quickly became cause for a "war on terror" that included a country not even involved in the attacks. Now we have the government gathering data on almost everyone, even if they haven't got the least bit of involvement with terrorists. This item comes from www.usndemvet.com:
The Defense Department has expanded its programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, creating new agencies, adding personnel and seeking additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world.
The moves have taken place on several fronts. The White House is considering expanding the power of a little-known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, which was created three years ago. The proposal, made by a presidential commission, would transform CIFA from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts -- including protecting military facilities from attack -- to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage.
The Pentagon has pushed legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
SIFTING FOR TRUTH
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have told so many lies it's virtually impossible to find the truth. It reminds me the gold seekers who came to California. They would take their pans to a promising stream and sift through the soil for gold nuggets. A gold nugget with this gang is just as hard to find and just an unlikely. This excerpt from Frank Rich's column is at www.rawstory.com:
Each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a PR operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.
....
IMPEACH BUSH
CHRIS WALLACE: BUSH SHILL
Chris Wallace is on the Fox Network and, what a surprise, was spinning history for Bush. Wallace had the absolute gall to claim that Bush never tried to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Bush has tried to blame Saddam Hussein for almost everything except original sin and he'll probably get around to that. This item comes from thinkprogress.org:
Wallace focused on a single statement President Bush made on September 25, 2002. (“[Y]ou can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”) But that statement was part of a series of statements that intentionally and explicitly linked Saddam and al Qaeda in the lead up to war. For example, this statement by Bush on February 8, 2003:
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.
Virtually none of that was true. The administration’s hand picked weapons inspector, David Kay, concluded “We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.” But to pretend that President Bush never made an effort to link Saddam and al-Qaeda is incredibly irresponsible, even for Fox.
PENTAGON SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS
We've fallen a very long way in the past few years. We went from a country that had a Bill of Rights that actually meant something to a country that is giving more and more power to the federal government to deny civil liberties. This all started because nineteen criminals found a gaping hole in U.S. airport security and pulled off a horrific suicide attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was an attack that should have been prevented, and would have been prevented with a competent administration in power. That attack quickly became cause for a "war on terror" that included a country not even involved in the attacks. Now we have the government gathering data on almost everyone, even if they haven't got the least bit of involvement with terrorists. This item comes from www.usndemvet.com:
The Defense Department has expanded its programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, creating new agencies, adding personnel and seeking additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world.
The moves have taken place on several fronts. The White House is considering expanding the power of a little-known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, which was created three years ago. The proposal, made by a presidential commission, would transform CIFA from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts -- including protecting military facilities from attack -- to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage.
The Pentagon has pushed legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
SIFTING FOR TRUTH
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have told so many lies it's virtually impossible to find the truth. It reminds me the gold seekers who came to California. They would take their pans to a promising stream and sift through the soil for gold nuggets. A gold nugget with this gang is just as hard to find and just an unlikely. This excerpt from Frank Rich's column is at www.rawstory.com:
Each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a PR operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.
....
Saturday, November 26, 2005
NOVEMBER 26, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
THIS IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
Right-wingers snarl that a progressive income tax is "redistribution of wealth." I once argued that there hasn't been that much redistribution. If you look at the great fortunes in the United States, the ones created mostly during the Gilded Age in the nineteenth century, those fortunes are very much intact. If there was such an insidious redistribution of wealth the way they claim, those fortunes should have evaporated long ago. In this era of right-wing economics, though, we're seeing a true redistribution of wealth. The number of poor and hungry increased, and so did the number of billionaires. The share of wealth going to the top 20% has increased dramatically since 1979, but most Americans are actually poorer now after adjusting for inflation. We don't hear the right-wingers crying about redistribution of wealth these days, do we? This article by Holly Sklar is at www.commondreams.org:
If you are feeling financially down this holiday season, there's a good reason. Average workers have been earning less after inflation, not more. Average hourly earnings dropped 5 percent, adjusting for inflation, between 1979 and 2004 -- while domestic corporate profits rose 63 percent.
The share of national income going to wages and salaries is at the lowest level since 1929 -- the year that kicked off the Great Depression. The share going to after-tax corporate profits, which heavily benefit wealthy Americans through increased dividends and capital gains, is at the highest level since 1929.
TAX CUTS FOR RICH NOTHING TO BE THANKFUL FOR
Republicans love tax cuts. They sell tax cuts as though they're benefiting Joe Average and that the tax cuts will create jobs and a booming economy. It didn't work in the Reagan years and it doesn't work now. You wind up with whopping deficits, anemic job creation, and dependence on foreign borrowing to keep the government afloat. We should learn from the example of the New Deal. The New Deal actually worked for the benefit of the average person. This article by Liz Stanton is at www.commondreams.org:
What have tax cuts given us to be thankful for? Nothing. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were a feast for the rich taken directly from the tables of the poor, the working class, the middle class, people of color, children and the elderly. Tax cuts made in the name of jobs that have not and will not materialize reveal a government acting in service of the voracious appetite of the very richest people in the United States. The Bush administration's promise that tax cuts for the rich would trickle down to workers has been broken. And when tax cuts and more tax cuts haven't succeeded in job creation or economic stimulus, how can we expect that still more tax cuts or permanent tax cuts somehow will? These tax cuts have been a real turkey for the economy.
BUSH SUPPORTERS ARE LOSING IT
In the past couple of days there have been a couple of truly asinine letters from right wingers in The Fresno Bee. We had one wingnut saying that Bush critics should offer up solutions. I would suggest that we have. Stop gutting the economy. Get out of Iraq. Pay attention to the environment. Those are just for starters. Today's gem recycles the old argument that if you criticize Bush you're aiding the terrorists. What stupidity. Bush has been the best friend the terrorists could have demanded. He has depleted our military, he has weakened our economy, and he has been the best terrorist recruiter the world has ever seen.
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING
The wingnut I mentioned in the item above claimed that "left-wingers" had brought America down over the past 40 years. There were no specifics, of course. He also didn't take into account that right-wingers have been in power a good part of the last 40 years. But it's the right-wing way to find a boogeyman to blame even when it's obvious to anyone rational who really is responsible for our current plight. Right-wingers have had this utopian ideal that if you have a military that can roll over everyone else in the world, ignore environmental regulations, stop regulating business, and destroy unions we'll be living in paradise. That's the perfect prescription for misery and disaster, but rationality isn't a part of the right-wing mindset. This article by John Powers at www.laweekly.com looks at the gambit of blame shifting, mostly by right-wingers, as the carnage continues in Iraq:
Blaming the war’s failures on those who actively opposed it and predicted, often with scary accuracy, just how it would go wrong, reminds me of the time in high school when our football coach blamed the team’s lousy performance on our lack of school spirit during a pep rally.
Knowing that the public has soured on the war, the administration has itself been staging pep rallies for both Bush and his “vice president for torture,” as former CIA head Stansfield Turner recently dubbed Dick Cheney. With the righteous self-pity that defines modern conservatism, the administration has been blaming its problems on everybody to the left of Bill O’Reilly. No matter that the right controls the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court and most corporate boardrooms. No matter that Iraq was the Bush administration’s war of choice. Somebody else is to blame.
IMPEACH BUSH
THIS IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
Right-wingers snarl that a progressive income tax is "redistribution of wealth." I once argued that there hasn't been that much redistribution. If you look at the great fortunes in the United States, the ones created mostly during the Gilded Age in the nineteenth century, those fortunes are very much intact. If there was such an insidious redistribution of wealth the way they claim, those fortunes should have evaporated long ago. In this era of right-wing economics, though, we're seeing a true redistribution of wealth. The number of poor and hungry increased, and so did the number of billionaires. The share of wealth going to the top 20% has increased dramatically since 1979, but most Americans are actually poorer now after adjusting for inflation. We don't hear the right-wingers crying about redistribution of wealth these days, do we? This article by Holly Sklar is at www.commondreams.org:
If you are feeling financially down this holiday season, there's a good reason. Average workers have been earning less after inflation, not more. Average hourly earnings dropped 5 percent, adjusting for inflation, between 1979 and 2004 -- while domestic corporate profits rose 63 percent.
The share of national income going to wages and salaries is at the lowest level since 1929 -- the year that kicked off the Great Depression. The share going to after-tax corporate profits, which heavily benefit wealthy Americans through increased dividends and capital gains, is at the highest level since 1929.
TAX CUTS FOR RICH NOTHING TO BE THANKFUL FOR
Republicans love tax cuts. They sell tax cuts as though they're benefiting Joe Average and that the tax cuts will create jobs and a booming economy. It didn't work in the Reagan years and it doesn't work now. You wind up with whopping deficits, anemic job creation, and dependence on foreign borrowing to keep the government afloat. We should learn from the example of the New Deal. The New Deal actually worked for the benefit of the average person. This article by Liz Stanton is at www.commondreams.org:
What have tax cuts given us to be thankful for? Nothing. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were a feast for the rich taken directly from the tables of the poor, the working class, the middle class, people of color, children and the elderly. Tax cuts made in the name of jobs that have not and will not materialize reveal a government acting in service of the voracious appetite of the very richest people in the United States. The Bush administration's promise that tax cuts for the rich would trickle down to workers has been broken. And when tax cuts and more tax cuts haven't succeeded in job creation or economic stimulus, how can we expect that still more tax cuts or permanent tax cuts somehow will? These tax cuts have been a real turkey for the economy.
BUSH SUPPORTERS ARE LOSING IT
In the past couple of days there have been a couple of truly asinine letters from right wingers in The Fresno Bee. We had one wingnut saying that Bush critics should offer up solutions. I would suggest that we have. Stop gutting the economy. Get out of Iraq. Pay attention to the environment. Those are just for starters. Today's gem recycles the old argument that if you criticize Bush you're aiding the terrorists. What stupidity. Bush has been the best friend the terrorists could have demanded. He has depleted our military, he has weakened our economy, and he has been the best terrorist recruiter the world has ever seen.
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING
The wingnut I mentioned in the item above claimed that "left-wingers" had brought America down over the past 40 years. There were no specifics, of course. He also didn't take into account that right-wingers have been in power a good part of the last 40 years. But it's the right-wing way to find a boogeyman to blame even when it's obvious to anyone rational who really is responsible for our current plight. Right-wingers have had this utopian ideal that if you have a military that can roll over everyone else in the world, ignore environmental regulations, stop regulating business, and destroy unions we'll be living in paradise. That's the perfect prescription for misery and disaster, but rationality isn't a part of the right-wing mindset. This article by John Powers at www.laweekly.com looks at the gambit of blame shifting, mostly by right-wingers, as the carnage continues in Iraq:
Blaming the war’s failures on those who actively opposed it and predicted, often with scary accuracy, just how it would go wrong, reminds me of the time in high school when our football coach blamed the team’s lousy performance on our lack of school spirit during a pep rally.
Knowing that the public has soured on the war, the administration has itself been staging pep rallies for both Bush and his “vice president for torture,” as former CIA head Stansfield Turner recently dubbed Dick Cheney. With the righteous self-pity that defines modern conservatism, the administration has been blaming its problems on everybody to the left of Bill O’Reilly. No matter that the right controls the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court and most corporate boardrooms. No matter that Iraq was the Bush administration’s war of choice. Somebody else is to blame.
Friday, November 25, 2005
NOVEMBER 25, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
GENERAL MOTORS AND HEALTH CARE
At one time it seemed a job with General Motors was like the Rock of Gibraltar. Workers got middle class wages, benefits, and a pension. GM sold lots of cars and prospered. Now in the era of globalization and right-wing economics things have changed. GM is going to lay off 30,000 workers. Right-wingers will try to blame unions for being too demanding, making GM "uncompetitive" with foreign auto makers. That explanation isn't true. Paul Krugman examines the connection between our lousy health care system and the woes at General Motors. This column is at www.topplebush.com:
Most commentary about G.M.'s troubles is resigned: pundits may regret the decline of a once-dominant company, but they don't think anything can or should be done about it. And commentary from some conservatives has an unmistakable tone of satisfaction, a sense that uppity workers who joined a union and made demands are getting what they deserve.
We shouldn't be so complacent. I won't defend the many bad decisions of G.M.'s management, or every demand made by the United Automobile Workers. But job losses at General Motors are part of the broader weakness of U.S. manufacturing, especially the part of U.S. manufacturing that offers workers decent wages and benefits. And some of that weakness reflects two big distortions in our economy: a dysfunctional health care system and an unsustainable trade deficit.
THE POOR ARE STILL THERE FOR THE HOLIDAYS
Now we vault into another holiday season with constant exhortations to buy, buy, buy. We'll see countless slickly-produced ads on TV, see our newspapers stuffed with advertising supplements, hear about "early bird" sales, hear the standard Christmas carols at the shopping malls, get the pitches from charities about donating, fight our way through snarls of traffic, and see necklaces of Christmas lights adorning houses all over town. But the poor are still there. Despite all the token references to peace and love and goodwill, we continue to live in an economic system that rewards the very few, provides a subsistence living to most, and leaves millions more without even basic necessities. This article by Mary Shaw is at www.opednews.com:
It's a grand American tradition. This harvest holiday of thanks has become a celebration of gluttony and excess.
Meantime, right here in the United States, 11.2 percent of households (including 13 million children) suffer from hunger or the risk of hunger due to poverty. Many of these families must routinely skip meals, sometimes for a full day, sometimes for much longer. The lucky ones are able to get food assistance to keep themselves alive.
These people don't have so much to be grateful for on Thanksgiving. And, as long as they remain invisible to the rest of us and our leaders, they'll continue to suffer as we go for that second slice of pie.
IMPEACH BUSH
GENERAL MOTORS AND HEALTH CARE
At one time it seemed a job with General Motors was like the Rock of Gibraltar. Workers got middle class wages, benefits, and a pension. GM sold lots of cars and prospered. Now in the era of globalization and right-wing economics things have changed. GM is going to lay off 30,000 workers. Right-wingers will try to blame unions for being too demanding, making GM "uncompetitive" with foreign auto makers. That explanation isn't true. Paul Krugman examines the connection between our lousy health care system and the woes at General Motors. This column is at www.topplebush.com:
Most commentary about G.M.'s troubles is resigned: pundits may regret the decline of a once-dominant company, but they don't think anything can or should be done about it. And commentary from some conservatives has an unmistakable tone of satisfaction, a sense that uppity workers who joined a union and made demands are getting what they deserve.
We shouldn't be so complacent. I won't defend the many bad decisions of G.M.'s management, or every demand made by the United Automobile Workers. But job losses at General Motors are part of the broader weakness of U.S. manufacturing, especially the part of U.S. manufacturing that offers workers decent wages and benefits. And some of that weakness reflects two big distortions in our economy: a dysfunctional health care system and an unsustainable trade deficit.
THE POOR ARE STILL THERE FOR THE HOLIDAYS
Now we vault into another holiday season with constant exhortations to buy, buy, buy. We'll see countless slickly-produced ads on TV, see our newspapers stuffed with advertising supplements, hear about "early bird" sales, hear the standard Christmas carols at the shopping malls, get the pitches from charities about donating, fight our way through snarls of traffic, and see necklaces of Christmas lights adorning houses all over town. But the poor are still there. Despite all the token references to peace and love and goodwill, we continue to live in an economic system that rewards the very few, provides a subsistence living to most, and leaves millions more without even basic necessities. This article by Mary Shaw is at www.opednews.com:
It's a grand American tradition. This harvest holiday of thanks has become a celebration of gluttony and excess.
Meantime, right here in the United States, 11.2 percent of households (including 13 million children) suffer from hunger or the risk of hunger due to poverty. Many of these families must routinely skip meals, sometimes for a full day, sometimes for much longer. The lucky ones are able to get food assistance to keep themselves alive.
These people don't have so much to be grateful for on Thanksgiving. And, as long as they remain invisible to the rest of us and our leaders, they'll continue to suffer as we go for that second slice of pie.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
NOVEMBER 24, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER
On his recent Asian trip George W. Bush was pontificating once again about democracy. He was lecturing the Chinese about democracy. Meanwhile, outside his phony Crawford, Texas, ranch protestors have been getting arrested. Throughout this awful presidency protestors have been intimidated or herded into "First Amendment" Zones because King George doesn't like dissent. Doug Thompson has another good column linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
That's right. The public no longer has a right to protest the President's policies on public land near the President's home in Crawford.
"The ordinance was very plainly meant to prevent people from protesting in front of Bush's ranch," Dave Jensen, a 54-year-old former Marine told reporters. "We feel that's a First Amendment issue. It's intentionally designed to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of assembly."
But the First Amendment doesn't mean much to cops in Texas or the Bush administration as a dozen protestors, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon papers fame along with the sister of Cindy Sheehan.
NEW YORK TIMES ATTACK ON ROBERT FISK
I admire Robert Fisk, so I will admit to some bias here. Fisk is perhaps the best journalist working the Middle East beat. He has been on the front lines and putting his own life in danger for some time to report the truth of what is happening in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. He has not been a good puppy dog supporting the official propaganda of the Bush and Blair regimes. The New York Times, on the other hand, had Judith Miller acting as a White House stenographer. So it's particularly galling that The Times would attack Robert Fisk. In this commentary Amitabh Pal talks about the hypocrisy of The Times. The article is at www.progressive.org:
I’m not sure what the problem is here. I have the book in front of me, and the book is very harsh on the adversaries of the United States, too, including the Soviets, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. In fact, when Fisk gave a lecture here in Madison a few years ago, he made it a point to show harrowing actual film footage of torture of prisoners in Saddam’s Iraq so as to dispel any possible illusions about the nature of the regime. What Bronner seems to have an issue with is Fisk’s criticism of Israel and the United States, criticism that he seems to dismiss a priori as illegitimate if it crosses a certain line. Maybe this isn’t too surprising. Bronner was dubbed by the vehemently pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) as “one of the most fair and informed foreign reporters ever to cover Israel” back when he was with the Boston Globe.
Bronner also chides Fisk for castigating Western reporting on the Middle East. But Bronner should know how awful it has been. He works at the New York Times, where Judith Miller was busy legitimizing the Iraq War by repeating Ahmad Chalabi’s lies on the front page.
IMPEACH BUSH
SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER
On his recent Asian trip George W. Bush was pontificating once again about democracy. He was lecturing the Chinese about democracy. Meanwhile, outside his phony Crawford, Texas, ranch protestors have been getting arrested. Throughout this awful presidency protestors have been intimidated or herded into "First Amendment" Zones because King George doesn't like dissent. Doug Thompson has another good column linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
That's right. The public no longer has a right to protest the President's policies on public land near the President's home in Crawford.
"The ordinance was very plainly meant to prevent people from protesting in front of Bush's ranch," Dave Jensen, a 54-year-old former Marine told reporters. "We feel that's a First Amendment issue. It's intentionally designed to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of assembly."
But the First Amendment doesn't mean much to cops in Texas or the Bush administration as a dozen protestors, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon papers fame along with the sister of Cindy Sheehan.
NEW YORK TIMES ATTACK ON ROBERT FISK
I admire Robert Fisk, so I will admit to some bias here. Fisk is perhaps the best journalist working the Middle East beat. He has been on the front lines and putting his own life in danger for some time to report the truth of what is happening in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. He has not been a good puppy dog supporting the official propaganda of the Bush and Blair regimes. The New York Times, on the other hand, had Judith Miller acting as a White House stenographer. So it's particularly galling that The Times would attack Robert Fisk. In this commentary Amitabh Pal talks about the hypocrisy of The Times. The article is at www.progressive.org:
I’m not sure what the problem is here. I have the book in front of me, and the book is very harsh on the adversaries of the United States, too, including the Soviets, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. In fact, when Fisk gave a lecture here in Madison a few years ago, he made it a point to show harrowing actual film footage of torture of prisoners in Saddam’s Iraq so as to dispel any possible illusions about the nature of the regime. What Bronner seems to have an issue with is Fisk’s criticism of Israel and the United States, criticism that he seems to dismiss a priori as illegitimate if it crosses a certain line. Maybe this isn’t too surprising. Bronner was dubbed by the vehemently pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) as “one of the most fair and informed foreign reporters ever to cover Israel” back when he was with the Boston Globe.
Bronner also chides Fisk for castigating Western reporting on the Middle East. But Bronner should know how awful it has been. He works at the New York Times, where Judith Miller was busy legitimizing the Iraq War by repeating Ahmad Chalabi’s lies on the front page.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
NOVEMBER 23, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
KRUGMAN: TIME TO LEAVE
The old saying is that fish and guests smell after three days. We've passed three days with the occupation of Iraq. The United States should never have gone there in the first place. There was no exit strategy once we got locked in. Now the Bush administration says we have to stay the course. It's a course that just creates more hatred, death, and destruction every day. If you're at a dead end you have to turn around. The argument is that civil war will break out if the U.S. leaves. Civil war is almost inevitable anyway. Things probably couldn't be worse than they are now and they might be better without the provocative presence of U.S. troops. Paul Krugman writes about it in this column at www.topplebush.com:
Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices - higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft - that might have made a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out. With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970's.
So the question isn't whether things will be ugly after American forces leave Iraq. They probably will. The question, instead, is whether it makes sense to keep the war going for another year or two, which is all the time we realistically have.
HANNITY SPINNING SAME OLD REAGAN MYTH
Right-wingers have shrugged off or ignored the record deficits created during the Reagan administration. They tell us that Reagan's tax cuts for the rich actually increased government revenues. Sean Hannity, another highly-paid Republican propagandist, was repeating the lie on his television show. In fact, revenue growth during the Reagan years wasn't that impressive. This article at mediamatters.org looks at the record:
According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office. Even in unadjusted (current) dollars, Hannity's claim that revenues "doubled" during the Reagan administration is false: From 1981 to 1988, revenues in current dollars increased from $599.3 billion to $909.3 billion.
BUSH'S LONG LIST OF FAILURES
If we survive the Bush presidency, future historians may speculate how a George W. Bush presidency came to be. How could such a unqualified man fool so many people for so long? How could so many believe that a man without principles is a "Godly" man? After experiencing the awful economics of the Reagan years, how could so many buy into trickle down economics again? In this article Stephen Pizzo looks at the Bush record. The article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Let's begin by taking the pulse of America's majority population: Working families. (More)
* Pre-tax incomes fell for middle-income families of every type
* After taking into account changes in both pre-tax income and taxes, the finding remains that most middle-income families lost ground
* Family spending on higher insurance co-pays, deductibles, and premiums has escalated in recent years
* Inflation-adjusted income of the median household was unchanged and remains $1,700, or 3.8 percent, below its most recent peak in 1999, according to Monday's release by the U.S. Bureau of the Census
IMPEACH BUSH
KRUGMAN: TIME TO LEAVE
The old saying is that fish and guests smell after three days. We've passed three days with the occupation of Iraq. The United States should never have gone there in the first place. There was no exit strategy once we got locked in. Now the Bush administration says we have to stay the course. It's a course that just creates more hatred, death, and destruction every day. If you're at a dead end you have to turn around. The argument is that civil war will break out if the U.S. leaves. Civil war is almost inevitable anyway. Things probably couldn't be worse than they are now and they might be better without the provocative presence of U.S. troops. Paul Krugman writes about it in this column at www.topplebush.com:
Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices - higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft - that might have made a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out. With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970's.
So the question isn't whether things will be ugly after American forces leave Iraq. They probably will. The question, instead, is whether it makes sense to keep the war going for another year or two, which is all the time we realistically have.
HANNITY SPINNING SAME OLD REAGAN MYTH
Right-wingers have shrugged off or ignored the record deficits created during the Reagan administration. They tell us that Reagan's tax cuts for the rich actually increased government revenues. Sean Hannity, another highly-paid Republican propagandist, was repeating the lie on his television show. In fact, revenue growth during the Reagan years wasn't that impressive. This article at mediamatters.org looks at the record:
According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office. Even in unadjusted (current) dollars, Hannity's claim that revenues "doubled" during the Reagan administration is false: From 1981 to 1988, revenues in current dollars increased from $599.3 billion to $909.3 billion.
BUSH'S LONG LIST OF FAILURES
If we survive the Bush presidency, future historians may speculate how a George W. Bush presidency came to be. How could such a unqualified man fool so many people for so long? How could so many believe that a man without principles is a "Godly" man? After experiencing the awful economics of the Reagan years, how could so many buy into trickle down economics again? In this article Stephen Pizzo looks at the Bush record. The article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Let's begin by taking the pulse of America's majority population: Working families. (More)
* Pre-tax incomes fell for middle-income families of every type
* After taking into account changes in both pre-tax income and taxes, the finding remains that most middle-income families lost ground
* Family spending on higher insurance co-pays, deductibles, and premiums has escalated in recent years
* Inflation-adjusted income of the median household was unchanged and remains $1,700, or 3.8 percent, below its most recent peak in 1999, according to Monday's release by the U.S. Bureau of the Census
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
POVERTY IN FRESNO
The Central Valley of California is among the most right-wing areas of the country. The local hate radio station KMJ has drawn top ratings for years by airing the bombast of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing blowhards. Fresno is the home of freerepublic.com, those "freepers" you may have heard about. I don't think it's an accident that the Central Valley and other right-wing areas are so dysfunctional. The rate of suicides, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, spousal abuse, and poverty are almost always higher in areas dominated by right-wingers. This story by Evelyn Nieves is at www.washingtonpost.com:
This city at the heart of the richest farmland in the world has been poor for so long, no one can remember it otherwise. Last month, when the Brookings Institution issued a report that said a higher proportion of poor people in Fresno lived in areas of concentrated poverty than in any other major city in the country -- pre-Katrina New Orleans was number two -- no one here was surprised. "My goodness, that's why I ran," said Alan Autry, who became mayor in 2000. "I called it 'A Tale of Two Cities.' "
Nonetheless, the Brookings study has spurred a call to arms here. Using 2000 Census data, it found that 43.5 percent of Fresno's poor live in extremely poor neighborhoods (where more than 40 percent of the residents live below the federal poverty line -- $17,600 a year for a family of four).
DOCUMENT SHOWS NO IRAQ CONNECTION--
JUST TEN DAYS AFTER 9/11 ATTACK
A new document that the Bush administration has refused to release shows that George W. Bush and senior members of his administration knew within ten days of the 9/11 attacks that Iraq was not connected to the attacks, and that Iraq had no credible ties to al-Qaeda. But the tsunami of lies about Iraq was being prepared because Bush and the reactionaries in his administration wanted a war. How much evidence does it take for even a Republican-controlled Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment? This article by Murray Waas is at nationaljournal.com:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
FORTY-TWO YEARS AGO
On this day forty-two years President John Kennedy was murdered in Dallas while traveling in a motorcade to make a speech. The Warren Commission found the lone assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald, who was murdered by Jack Ruby two days later, but I've never bought the Warren Commission report. There are too many things left unexplained. JFK and Bob Kennedy are two of my major political heroes. Like all men, they weren't perfect. But they represented hope and vision and a better life for most people around the world. The leadership we see now represents darkness and oppression and despair. I hope we can find a leader in the spirit of JFK and RFK and turn back the darkness.
ABRAMOFF SCANDAL IS SPREADING
Super lobbyist Jack Abramoff has greased various palms, most of them Republicans, in a very good example of a banana republic style of government. Abramoff has strong ties to indicted Congressman Tom DeLay. Former White House official David Safavian has been arrested in a case connected to Abramoff. Now the scandal is spreading like an oil slick to implicate members of Congress. This article by James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt is at www.washingtonpost.com:
A onetime congressional staffer who became a top partner to lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials and agreed to pay back more than $19 million he fraudulently charged Indian tribal clients.
The plea agreement between prosecutors and Michael Scanlon, a former press secretary to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), provided fresh detail about the alleged bribes. The document also indicated the nature of testimony Scanlon is prepared to offer against a congressman it calls "Representative #1" -- who has been identified by attorneys in the case as Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio).
IMPEACH BUSH
POVERTY IN FRESNO
The Central Valley of California is among the most right-wing areas of the country. The local hate radio station KMJ has drawn top ratings for years by airing the bombast of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing blowhards. Fresno is the home of freerepublic.com, those "freepers" you may have heard about. I don't think it's an accident that the Central Valley and other right-wing areas are so dysfunctional. The rate of suicides, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, spousal abuse, and poverty are almost always higher in areas dominated by right-wingers. This story by Evelyn Nieves is at www.washingtonpost.com:
This city at the heart of the richest farmland in the world has been poor for so long, no one can remember it otherwise. Last month, when the Brookings Institution issued a report that said a higher proportion of poor people in Fresno lived in areas of concentrated poverty than in any other major city in the country -- pre-Katrina New Orleans was number two -- no one here was surprised. "My goodness, that's why I ran," said Alan Autry, who became mayor in 2000. "I called it 'A Tale of Two Cities.' "
Nonetheless, the Brookings study has spurred a call to arms here. Using 2000 Census data, it found that 43.5 percent of Fresno's poor live in extremely poor neighborhoods (where more than 40 percent of the residents live below the federal poverty line -- $17,600 a year for a family of four).
DOCUMENT SHOWS NO IRAQ CONNECTION--
JUST TEN DAYS AFTER 9/11 ATTACK
A new document that the Bush administration has refused to release shows that George W. Bush and senior members of his administration knew within ten days of the 9/11 attacks that Iraq was not connected to the attacks, and that Iraq had no credible ties to al-Qaeda. But the tsunami of lies about Iraq was being prepared because Bush and the reactionaries in his administration wanted a war. How much evidence does it take for even a Republican-controlled Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment? This article by Murray Waas is at nationaljournal.com:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
FORTY-TWO YEARS AGO
On this day forty-two years President John Kennedy was murdered in Dallas while traveling in a motorcade to make a speech. The Warren Commission found the lone assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald, who was murdered by Jack Ruby two days later, but I've never bought the Warren Commission report. There are too many things left unexplained. JFK and Bob Kennedy are two of my major political heroes. Like all men, they weren't perfect. But they represented hope and vision and a better life for most people around the world. The leadership we see now represents darkness and oppression and despair. I hope we can find a leader in the spirit of JFK and RFK and turn back the darkness.
ABRAMOFF SCANDAL IS SPREADING
Super lobbyist Jack Abramoff has greased various palms, most of them Republicans, in a very good example of a banana republic style of government. Abramoff has strong ties to indicted Congressman Tom DeLay. Former White House official David Safavian has been arrested in a case connected to Abramoff. Now the scandal is spreading like an oil slick to implicate members of Congress. This article by James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt is at www.washingtonpost.com:
A onetime congressional staffer who became a top partner to lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials and agreed to pay back more than $19 million he fraudulently charged Indian tribal clients.
The plea agreement between prosecutors and Michael Scanlon, a former press secretary to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), provided fresh detail about the alleged bribes. The document also indicated the nature of testimony Scanlon is prepared to offer against a congressman it calls "Representative #1" -- who has been identified by attorneys in the case as Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio).
Monday, November 21, 2005
NOVEMBER 21, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
Thomas Jefferson wrote some stirring and immortal words in the Declaration of Independence, including the concept that governments rule by consent of the governed. That is rule from the bottom to the top, not the way right-wingers like George W. Bush want it. It is evident that the administration of George W. Bush was installed illegally and has pursued an extremist agenda from its first day. Bush and company could get away with it as long as they enjoyed some kind of popular support. They do not have that support now. Most of us want the Bush administration out of power. It's time to talk resignation or impeachment. P.M. Carpenter talks about the resignation option in this column at pmcarpenter.blogs.com:
Something has got to give. The only questions are who and what, how, and how much. And by now one conceivable scenario – and don’t laugh; no one ever thought Tricky Dick would do this, ever – is the resignation of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
In the comings months it will become increasingly undeniable to the public and mainstream media that Bush-Cheney’s actions in ginning up the Iraq war were nakedly impeachable. Consequently the White House will have even less of a base – even in Congress, whose members will be running faster and farther away from the administration as the midterm election nears.
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE IN FLORIDA HASN'T COST JOBS
Right-wingers always oppose increases in the minimum wage. They believe in the "market," they say. It's a system where CEOs can make hundreds of times more than their workers and where the minimum wage doesn't even keep pace with inflation. It's a system where a person working full time can live below the poverty level. Contrary to what right-wingers say, it isn't only kids from high school making the minimum wage. The Bush administration has passed massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, but the minimum wage is still at the lowly level it was eight years ago. In Florida they raised the minimum wage and--surprise--it hasn't cost jobs after all. This story by Michael Sasso is at www.tampatrib.com:
Today, though, it's hard to find much wreckage in the Florida retailing and restaurant industries, the two groups that bankrolled the Coalition to Save Florida Jobs.
Seventy-one percent of Florida voters passed the increase, and since the new minimum wage was implemented in May, retail stores and restaurants have added tens of thousands of employees.
Some of the biggest contributors to the Coalition to Save Florida Jobs have had stellar financial performances since May, including Publix Super Markets of Lakeland and Darden Restaurants of Orlando (owner of Red Lobster and Olive Garden).
Opponents say it's too soon to gauge the amendment's effect, and having it repealed or altered through another amendment is a high priority.
FALWELL'S PHONY CHRISTMAS CRUSADE
Jerry Falwell, one of the most despicable members of the Christian right, has a new cause this Christmas, attacking anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas the way Falwell sees fit. Instead of talking about things like love and compassion and peace, which should be the Christmas message, Falwell is in a snit because some retailers don't say "Merry Christmas." Mr. Falwell should look at the entire history of Christmas, including its many pagan connections, and lighten up. This story by Joe Garofoli is at www.sfgate.com:
Evangelical Christian pastor Jerry Falwell has a message for Americans when it comes to celebrating Christmas this year: You're either with us, or you're against us.
Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel. The group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces.
IMPEACH BUSH
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
Thomas Jefferson wrote some stirring and immortal words in the Declaration of Independence, including the concept that governments rule by consent of the governed. That is rule from the bottom to the top, not the way right-wingers like George W. Bush want it. It is evident that the administration of George W. Bush was installed illegally and has pursued an extremist agenda from its first day. Bush and company could get away with it as long as they enjoyed some kind of popular support. They do not have that support now. Most of us want the Bush administration out of power. It's time to talk resignation or impeachment. P.M. Carpenter talks about the resignation option in this column at pmcarpenter.blogs.com:
Something has got to give. The only questions are who and what, how, and how much. And by now one conceivable scenario – and don’t laugh; no one ever thought Tricky Dick would do this, ever – is the resignation of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
In the comings months it will become increasingly undeniable to the public and mainstream media that Bush-Cheney’s actions in ginning up the Iraq war were nakedly impeachable. Consequently the White House will have even less of a base – even in Congress, whose members will be running faster and farther away from the administration as the midterm election nears.
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE IN FLORIDA HASN'T COST JOBS
Right-wingers always oppose increases in the minimum wage. They believe in the "market," they say. It's a system where CEOs can make hundreds of times more than their workers and where the minimum wage doesn't even keep pace with inflation. It's a system where a person working full time can live below the poverty level. Contrary to what right-wingers say, it isn't only kids from high school making the minimum wage. The Bush administration has passed massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, but the minimum wage is still at the lowly level it was eight years ago. In Florida they raised the minimum wage and--surprise--it hasn't cost jobs after all. This story by Michael Sasso is at www.tampatrib.com:
Today, though, it's hard to find much wreckage in the Florida retailing and restaurant industries, the two groups that bankrolled the Coalition to Save Florida Jobs.
Seventy-one percent of Florida voters passed the increase, and since the new minimum wage was implemented in May, retail stores and restaurants have added tens of thousands of employees.
Some of the biggest contributors to the Coalition to Save Florida Jobs have had stellar financial performances since May, including Publix Super Markets of Lakeland and Darden Restaurants of Orlando (owner of Red Lobster and Olive Garden).
Opponents say it's too soon to gauge the amendment's effect, and having it repealed or altered through another amendment is a high priority.
FALWELL'S PHONY CHRISTMAS CRUSADE
Jerry Falwell, one of the most despicable members of the Christian right, has a new cause this Christmas, attacking anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas the way Falwell sees fit. Instead of talking about things like love and compassion and peace, which should be the Christmas message, Falwell is in a snit because some retailers don't say "Merry Christmas." Mr. Falwell should look at the entire history of Christmas, including its many pagan connections, and lighten up. This story by Joe Garofoli is at www.sfgate.com:
Evangelical Christian pastor Jerry Falwell has a message for Americans when it comes to celebrating Christmas this year: You're either with us, or you're against us.
Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel. The group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
NOVEMBER 20, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
IS CONDI RICE HEARING THE MUSIC FROM "JAWS"?
Like the rays emanating from the sun, the connections of Bush administration officials to the Valerie Plame leak go everywhere. David Sirota believes Condi Rice may be in this scandal way over the top of her expensive shoes. This item is at www.workingforchange.com:
Looks like I may have been right about Rice. Back in July I speculated that Condoleezza Rice may be at the center of the Wilson/Plame leak. Now it seems like that speculation may, in fact, have been right on. While she is denying her role - the fact that she feels compelled to offer a public defense today should tell us something: namely, the sharks are circling around her and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley.
Looks like I may have been right about Rice. Back in July I speculated that Condoleezza Rice may be at the center of the Wilson/Plame leak. Now it seems like that speculation may, in fact, have been right on. While she is denying her role - the fact that she feels compelled to offer a public defense today should tell us something: namely, the sharks are circling around her and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley.
If the Times of London today is right and Hadley was Woodward's direct source, that raises a very important question: Was Hadley ordered to leak Plame's name to the press by his boss at the time, Condi Rice? In other words, Rice may not have been Woodward's direct source as she claims - but that doesn't mean she didn't give the order. Remember, as I wrote back in July, Wilson's New York Times op-ed was a direct indictment of Rice, meaning she had a personal motive. And it would be extremely hard to imagine Hadley acting alone with such a coordinated hit job on a CIA officer...Stay tuned.
ABRAMOFF SCANDAL HAS SOME CONGRESSMEN SWEATING
Jack Abramoff, lobbyist of lobbyists and friend to Republicans, may have crossed the line with members of Congress, it turns out. The Justice Department is sending out signals that members of Congress may be caught up in this investigation. Abramoff has strong ties to indicted Congressman Tom DeLay. One White House official, David Safavian, has already been arrested because of his involvement with Abramoff. I wonder if Rubber Stamp Radanovich, the Congressman from my district, is sleeping well these nights. This story by Philip Shenon is at www.nytimes.com:
The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.
The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.
The charges against Mr. Scanlon identified no lawmakers by name, but a summary of the case released by the Justice Department accused him of being part of a broad conspiracy to provide "things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment to federal public officials in return for agreements to perform official acts" - an attempt at bribery, in other words, or something close to it.
BUSH HAS FUELED CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ
I guess when God told George W. Bush to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein He left out a few things. He didn't mention to George that the U.S. would be bogged down in a war that isn't gone to be won. He didn't mention that Saddam Hussein, bad as he was, helped to keep Iraq secular and away from the control of religious extremists. He also didn't mention that the ethnic divides in Iraq would spark civil war among the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. It could be, of course, that God never spoke to George at all. This article by Sabrina Tavernise is at www.nytimes.com:
Two and a half years after the American invasion, deep divides that have long split Iraqi society have violently burst into full view. As the hatred between Sunni Arabs and Shiites hardens and the relentless toll of bombings and assassinations grows, families are leaving their mixed towns and cities for safer areas where they will not automatically be targets. In doing so, they are creating increasingly polarized enclaves and redrawing the sectarian map of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the belt of cities around it.
The evidence is so far mostly anecdotal - the government is not tracking the moves. In a rough count, about 20 cities and towns around Baghdad are segregating, according to accounts by local sheiks, Iraqi
IMPEACH BUSH
IS CONDI RICE HEARING THE MUSIC FROM "JAWS"?
Like the rays emanating from the sun, the connections of Bush administration officials to the Valerie Plame leak go everywhere. David Sirota believes Condi Rice may be in this scandal way over the top of her expensive shoes. This item is at www.workingforchange.com:
Looks like I may have been right about Rice. Back in July I speculated that Condoleezza Rice may be at the center of the Wilson/Plame leak. Now it seems like that speculation may, in fact, have been right on. While she is denying her role - the fact that she feels compelled to offer a public defense today should tell us something: namely, the sharks are circling around her and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley.
Looks like I may have been right about Rice. Back in July I speculated that Condoleezza Rice may be at the center of the Wilson/Plame leak. Now it seems like that speculation may, in fact, have been right on. While she is denying her role - the fact that she feels compelled to offer a public defense today should tell us something: namely, the sharks are circling around her and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley.
If the Times of London today is right and Hadley was Woodward's direct source, that raises a very important question: Was Hadley ordered to leak Plame's name to the press by his boss at the time, Condi Rice? In other words, Rice may not have been Woodward's direct source as she claims - but that doesn't mean she didn't give the order. Remember, as I wrote back in July, Wilson's New York Times op-ed was a direct indictment of Rice, meaning she had a personal motive. And it would be extremely hard to imagine Hadley acting alone with such a coordinated hit job on a CIA officer...Stay tuned.
ABRAMOFF SCANDAL HAS SOME CONGRESSMEN SWEATING
Jack Abramoff, lobbyist of lobbyists and friend to Republicans, may have crossed the line with members of Congress, it turns out. The Justice Department is sending out signals that members of Congress may be caught up in this investigation. Abramoff has strong ties to indicted Congressman Tom DeLay. One White House official, David Safavian, has already been arrested because of his involvement with Abramoff. I wonder if Rubber Stamp Radanovich, the Congressman from my district, is sleeping well these nights. This story by Philip Shenon is at www.nytimes.com:
The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.
The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.
The charges against Mr. Scanlon identified no lawmakers by name, but a summary of the case released by the Justice Department accused him of being part of a broad conspiracy to provide "things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment to federal public officials in return for agreements to perform official acts" - an attempt at bribery, in other words, or something close to it.
BUSH HAS FUELED CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ
I guess when God told George W. Bush to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein He left out a few things. He didn't mention to George that the U.S. would be bogged down in a war that isn't gone to be won. He didn't mention that Saddam Hussein, bad as he was, helped to keep Iraq secular and away from the control of religious extremists. He also didn't mention that the ethnic divides in Iraq would spark civil war among the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. It could be, of course, that God never spoke to George at all. This article by Sabrina Tavernise is at www.nytimes.com:
Two and a half years after the American invasion, deep divides that have long split Iraqi society have violently burst into full view. As the hatred between Sunni Arabs and Shiites hardens and the relentless toll of bombings and assassinations grows, families are leaving their mixed towns and cities for safer areas where they will not automatically be targets. In doing so, they are creating increasingly polarized enclaves and redrawing the sectarian map of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the belt of cities around it.
The evidence is so far mostly anecdotal - the government is not tracking the moves. In a rough count, about 20 cities and towns around Baghdad are segregating, according to accounts by local sheiks, Iraqi
Saturday, November 19, 2005
NOVEMBER 19, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH ADMINISTRATION MIX OF INCOMPETENCE AND LIES
The President of the United States and his administration make policy decisions that affect millions of lives around the globe. Whether those decisions involve economics, the environment, human rights, or issues of war and peace they have far reaching consequences. This country and the world cannot afford an administration that has a first instinct to lie, a first response to launch war, and a mind-boggling incompetence. Richard Cohen examines Bush and company in this column at www.washingtonpost.com:
At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration. It has shown itself inept in the run-up to the war and the conduct of it since. Almost three years into the war, the world is not safer, the Middle East is less stable, and Americans and others die for a mission that is not what it once was and cannot be what it now is called: a fight for democracy. It would be nice, as well as important, to know how we got into this mess -- nice for us, important for the president. It wasn't that he had the wrong facts. It was that the right ones didn't matter.
THE ELITE DISCONNECT
Whether willfully ignorant, or some combination of callousness and ignorance, the financial and political elites claim we have a "robust" economy. They spin the myth that the United States is the land of opportunity. If you strive here, you're told, you'll be a success. It simply isn't true. This article by Mary Pitt examines the disconnect by elitists such as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who proclaims from on high about how wonderful our economy is doing. The article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
One ventures at one's peril to impugn the intelligence of such a sage as Mr. Greenspan but he can be excused if his brilliant mind is so consumed with the problems of the money supply that he can be forgiven for not being aware of the social issues involved in the present situation. When he sees the news of the rioting in France, he has not time to ponder the fact that it is caused by the desperation of the people as they suffer from lack of productive employment, the means to establish themselves in society, to provide for their families, and to overcome the ever-present racial discrimination. As the President travels to Argentina to help form the economic future of the two continents, he is met by demonstrations and similar riots as the Argentinian people are faced with the same problems.
The world over, the wealthy are reaping the profits of the labor of the poor while the working class sink more deeply into debt and desperation. While the powerful concentrate on the dangers of nuclear wars and a crashing world economy, they are neglecting to notice a much greater threat to their power and position. The unrest and growing desperation of the poor could cause a world-wide upheaval that would repeat history as demonstrated by the first American Revolution, the overthrow of the monarchy in France, the Communist takeover of Russia, and the South African rebellion which led to the changes in the political landscape there. Political changes are in the wind in every nation of the world as a more intelligent and better educated working class realize that a mere subsistence is not enough and they determine to gain their freedom and opportunities for a better life. Slavery, whether imposed by bond and whip or by starvation and neglect, will not long be tolerated by any living person so long as the breath of God stirs in his body.
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH ADMINISTRATION MIX OF INCOMPETENCE AND LIES
The President of the United States and his administration make policy decisions that affect millions of lives around the globe. Whether those decisions involve economics, the environment, human rights, or issues of war and peace they have far reaching consequences. This country and the world cannot afford an administration that has a first instinct to lie, a first response to launch war, and a mind-boggling incompetence. Richard Cohen examines Bush and company in this column at www.washingtonpost.com:
At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration. It has shown itself inept in the run-up to the war and the conduct of it since. Almost three years into the war, the world is not safer, the Middle East is less stable, and Americans and others die for a mission that is not what it once was and cannot be what it now is called: a fight for democracy. It would be nice, as well as important, to know how we got into this mess -- nice for us, important for the president. It wasn't that he had the wrong facts. It was that the right ones didn't matter.
THE ELITE DISCONNECT
Whether willfully ignorant, or some combination of callousness and ignorance, the financial and political elites claim we have a "robust" economy. They spin the myth that the United States is the land of opportunity. If you strive here, you're told, you'll be a success. It simply isn't true. This article by Mary Pitt examines the disconnect by elitists such as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who proclaims from on high about how wonderful our economy is doing. The article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
One ventures at one's peril to impugn the intelligence of such a sage as Mr. Greenspan but he can be excused if his brilliant mind is so consumed with the problems of the money supply that he can be forgiven for not being aware of the social issues involved in the present situation. When he sees the news of the rioting in France, he has not time to ponder the fact that it is caused by the desperation of the people as they suffer from lack of productive employment, the means to establish themselves in society, to provide for their families, and to overcome the ever-present racial discrimination. As the President travels to Argentina to help form the economic future of the two continents, he is met by demonstrations and similar riots as the Argentinian people are faced with the same problems.
The world over, the wealthy are reaping the profits of the labor of the poor while the working class sink more deeply into debt and desperation. While the powerful concentrate on the dangers of nuclear wars and a crashing world economy, they are neglecting to notice a much greater threat to their power and position. The unrest and growing desperation of the poor could cause a world-wide upheaval that would repeat history as demonstrated by the first American Revolution, the overthrow of the monarchy in France, the Communist takeover of Russia, and the South African rebellion which led to the changes in the political landscape there. Political changes are in the wind in every nation of the world as a more intelligent and better educated working class realize that a mere subsistence is not enough and they determine to gain their freedom and opportunities for a better life. Slavery, whether imposed by bond and whip or by starvation and neglect, will not long be tolerated by any living person so long as the breath of God stirs in his body.
Friday, November 18, 2005
NOVEMBER 18, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WAR
George W. Bush has used a two-pronged attack to rebut critics of his disastrous war in Iraq. The first prong has been the tried and true pack of lies that Saddam Hussein presented a grave threat to the United States, that Saddam had terrorist connections, or that we're doing the Iraqis a big favor by taking out Saddam. The other prong is that Democrats who supported the war saw the same intelligence that Bush and his administration saw. That's a monstrous lie. Democrats should have been more skeptical of Bush. How can you observe this smirking little weasel, knowing his life history, and not be skeptical? Nevertheless, Democrats who voted for the war were doing so because they believed the country was in danger. Joe Conason writes about it in this column at www.workingforchange.com:
The Senate couldn’t know back then that the president and his national-security cabinet had been planning war against Iraq since early 2001. The Senate was not privy to all the same intelligence as the president, nor could its members have known how that information had been distorted and exaggerated by the influence of the vice president and other high White House officials. The Senate didn’t know, as the British intelligence chief learned, that the facts were being “fixed ” to build a case for war.
Without the firm imprimatur of Dick Cheney, no Senator could have claimed to know “without doubt” that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program. Without the confident endorsement of Donald Rumsfeld, no Senator could have claimed to know “exactly” where the “weapons of mass destruction” were located. Without the jut-jawed insistence of Condi Rice, no Senator could have touted the uranium from Africa and the aluminum tubes that were supposed to make a nuke for Saddam.
It is pitiful indeed to hear the President now pretend that the responsibility for this deadly fiasco somehow falls equally on both parties and both branches of government. As far as the public is concerned, that debate is over—and his administration is guilty.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
The health care system in the United States is a disaster. First, millions of Americans have no health insurance at all. For people with health care, the costs are skyrocketing. If you lose your job, you also lose your health insurance. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, even decreed that a catastrophic health care crisis wasn't reason enough to get bankruptcy relief. In this article Robert Reich points out that the current system of employer-subsidized health care is a backdoor tax writeoff. Once again, the very richest people get most of the benefits. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Think of employer-provided health care as a kind of back-door, $126 billion-a-year health insurance system. But what a bizarre system it is. First, you’re not eligible for it when you and your family are likely to need it the most – when you lose your job. And these days, that’s happening more and more. Employers are slashing their payrolls. No job is safe. Why add to employees’ anxieties by ending their health insurance just when they’re shown out the door?
Second, the system distorts the whole labor market. It prevents lots of people from changing jobs for fear they’ll lose their health insurance, or won’t get the benefits they do now. And it invites employers to game the system by seeking young, healthy employees who pose low risks of ill-health while rejecting older employees who are likely to have more costly health needs. It also encourages employers to try to push their married employees onto their spouse’s health insurance plan so that the spouse’s employer bears the cost.
Finally, the system is upside down. The lower your pay, the less coverage you’re likely to have. Workers in the lowest paying jobs have no health insurance at all. But the higher your pay, the more health coverage you get – with top executives getting gold-plated plans guaranteeing top-notch medical attention for just about every health risk you can imagine.
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WAR
George W. Bush has used a two-pronged attack to rebut critics of his disastrous war in Iraq. The first prong has been the tried and true pack of lies that Saddam Hussein presented a grave threat to the United States, that Saddam had terrorist connections, or that we're doing the Iraqis a big favor by taking out Saddam. The other prong is that Democrats who supported the war saw the same intelligence that Bush and his administration saw. That's a monstrous lie. Democrats should have been more skeptical of Bush. How can you observe this smirking little weasel, knowing his life history, and not be skeptical? Nevertheless, Democrats who voted for the war were doing so because they believed the country was in danger. Joe Conason writes about it in this column at www.workingforchange.com:
The Senate couldn’t know back then that the president and his national-security cabinet had been planning war against Iraq since early 2001. The Senate was not privy to all the same intelligence as the president, nor could its members have known how that information had been distorted and exaggerated by the influence of the vice president and other high White House officials. The Senate didn’t know, as the British intelligence chief learned, that the facts were being “fixed ” to build a case for war.
Without the firm imprimatur of Dick Cheney, no Senator could have claimed to know “without doubt” that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program. Without the confident endorsement of Donald Rumsfeld, no Senator could have claimed to know “exactly” where the “weapons of mass destruction” were located. Without the jut-jawed insistence of Condi Rice, no Senator could have touted the uranium from Africa and the aluminum tubes that were supposed to make a nuke for Saddam.
It is pitiful indeed to hear the President now pretend that the responsibility for this deadly fiasco somehow falls equally on both parties and both branches of government. As far as the public is concerned, that debate is over—and his administration is guilty.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
The health care system in the United States is a disaster. First, millions of Americans have no health insurance at all. For people with health care, the costs are skyrocketing. If you lose your job, you also lose your health insurance. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, even decreed that a catastrophic health care crisis wasn't reason enough to get bankruptcy relief. In this article Robert Reich points out that the current system of employer-subsidized health care is a backdoor tax writeoff. Once again, the very richest people get most of the benefits. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Think of employer-provided health care as a kind of back-door, $126 billion-a-year health insurance system. But what a bizarre system it is. First, you’re not eligible for it when you and your family are likely to need it the most – when you lose your job. And these days, that’s happening more and more. Employers are slashing their payrolls. No job is safe. Why add to employees’ anxieties by ending their health insurance just when they’re shown out the door?
Second, the system distorts the whole labor market. It prevents lots of people from changing jobs for fear they’ll lose their health insurance, or won’t get the benefits they do now. And it invites employers to game the system by seeking young, healthy employees who pose low risks of ill-health while rejecting older employees who are likely to have more costly health needs. It also encourages employers to try to push their married employees onto their spouse’s health insurance plan so that the spouse’s employer bears the cost.
Finally, the system is upside down. The lower your pay, the less coverage you’re likely to have. Workers in the lowest paying jobs have no health insurance at all. But the higher your pay, the more health coverage you get – with top executives getting gold-plated plans guaranteeing top-notch medical attention for just about every health risk you can imagine.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
NOVEMBER 17, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH AND NIXON, WHAT A PAIR
Until George W. Bush came along Richard Nixon had the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. That other good Republican president, Warren G. Harding, had a few scandals, and so did Ronald Reagan. But Bush parallels Nixon in some eerie ways. This article by THOM SHANKER, DAVID STOUT
and JOHN FILES is at www.nytimes.com:
With an obvious resonance to current events, the National Archives and Records Administration released 50,000 pages of previously classified documents from the Nixon administration today that reveal how all that president's men wrestled with issues that eerily parallel problems facing the Bush administration.
There are many significant differences between the wars in Vietnam and in Iraq - a point that senior Bush administration officials make at any opportunity. But in tone and content, the Nixon-era debate about the impact of that generation's war - and of war crimes trials -- on public support for the military effort and for White House domestic initiatives strikes many familiar chords.
As the Nixon administration was waging a war and trying to impose a peace in South Vietnam, it worried intensively about how the 1968 massacre at My Lai by American troops would hurt the war effort, both at home and in Asia.
MORE RIGHT-WING LOGIC
Today's Fresno Bee features a letter attacking Senator Edward Kennedy for criticizing Bush's Iraq war. Our historian points out that JFK committed troops to Vietnam without an exit strategy. Let's see, that was over forty years ago. JFK also didn't launch a full-scale invasion of Vietnam. He sent the initial troop deployment to Vietnam, it's true, but there is much evidence he was going to withdraw from Vietnam. His murder prevented that from happening. Using our right-winger's logic, if you ever had anyone in your family guilty of murder, then you can't criticize murderers. If you have a drunk driver in the family, you can't criticize drunk drivers. If your ancestors owned slaves, then you just can't criticize slavery. George W. Bush should have learned some lessons from Vietnam, which he obviously did not. Senator Kennedy has to speak to things the way they are in 2005. He has to represent his constituency in Massachusetts and a national constituency opposed to this vile war. I'm sure JFK would agree.
BOB WOODWARD AND THE PLAME LEAK
It seems that famed Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward was privy to information about Valerie Plame's status two years ago, but Woodward never disclosed that information to his editor. Woodward's excuse was that he was afraid of having to testify before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. Never mind that this leak was illegal, compromised U.S. intelligence, and has possibly cost lives. Never mind that this leak was a part of the whole package of lies leading us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. Woodward has fallen a long way from his days an investigative reporter in the Watergate scandal. This article by Howard Kurtz is at www.washingtonpost.com:
The belated revelation that Woodward has been sitting on information about the Plame controversy reignited questions about his unique relationship with The Post while he writes books with unparalleled access to high-level officials, and about why Woodward denigrated the Fitzgerald probe in television and radio interviews while not divulging his own involvement in the matter.
"It just looks really bad," said Eric Boehlert, a Rolling Stone contributing editor and author of a forthcoming book on the administration and the press. "It looks like what people have been saying about Bob Woodward for the past five years, that he's become a stenographer for the Bush White House."
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH AND NIXON, WHAT A PAIR
Until George W. Bush came along Richard Nixon had the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. That other good Republican president, Warren G. Harding, had a few scandals, and so did Ronald Reagan. But Bush parallels Nixon in some eerie ways. This article by THOM SHANKER, DAVID STOUT
and JOHN FILES is at www.nytimes.com:
With an obvious resonance to current events, the National Archives and Records Administration released 50,000 pages of previously classified documents from the Nixon administration today that reveal how all that president's men wrestled with issues that eerily parallel problems facing the Bush administration.
There are many significant differences between the wars in Vietnam and in Iraq - a point that senior Bush administration officials make at any opportunity. But in tone and content, the Nixon-era debate about the impact of that generation's war - and of war crimes trials -- on public support for the military effort and for White House domestic initiatives strikes many familiar chords.
As the Nixon administration was waging a war and trying to impose a peace in South Vietnam, it worried intensively about how the 1968 massacre at My Lai by American troops would hurt the war effort, both at home and in Asia.
MORE RIGHT-WING LOGIC
Today's Fresno Bee features a letter attacking Senator Edward Kennedy for criticizing Bush's Iraq war. Our historian points out that JFK committed troops to Vietnam without an exit strategy. Let's see, that was over forty years ago. JFK also didn't launch a full-scale invasion of Vietnam. He sent the initial troop deployment to Vietnam, it's true, but there is much evidence he was going to withdraw from Vietnam. His murder prevented that from happening. Using our right-winger's logic, if you ever had anyone in your family guilty of murder, then you can't criticize murderers. If you have a drunk driver in the family, you can't criticize drunk drivers. If your ancestors owned slaves, then you just can't criticize slavery. George W. Bush should have learned some lessons from Vietnam, which he obviously did not. Senator Kennedy has to speak to things the way they are in 2005. He has to represent his constituency in Massachusetts and a national constituency opposed to this vile war. I'm sure JFK would agree.
BOB WOODWARD AND THE PLAME LEAK
It seems that famed Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward was privy to information about Valerie Plame's status two years ago, but Woodward never disclosed that information to his editor. Woodward's excuse was that he was afraid of having to testify before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. Never mind that this leak was illegal, compromised U.S. intelligence, and has possibly cost lives. Never mind that this leak was a part of the whole package of lies leading us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. Woodward has fallen a long way from his days an investigative reporter in the Watergate scandal. This article by Howard Kurtz is at www.washingtonpost.com:
The belated revelation that Woodward has been sitting on information about the Plame controversy reignited questions about his unique relationship with The Post while he writes books with unparalleled access to high-level officials, and about why Woodward denigrated the Fitzgerald probe in television and radio interviews while not divulging his own involvement in the matter.
"It just looks really bad," said Eric Boehlert, a Rolling Stone contributing editor and author of a forthcoming book on the administration and the press. "It looks like what people have been saying about Bob Woodward for the past five years, that he's become a stenographer for the Bush White House."
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
RIGHT-WING PBS CHIEF BROKE LAW REPEATEDLY
Kenneth Tomlinson, who stepped down as head of PBS, was found to have repeatedly broken federal law in his efforts to turn PBS into a version of FOX News. That's according to a report by the PBS inspector general. It's not enough that right-wingers already own almost all the media in this country. They put "journalists" like Armstrong Williams on the payroll. They have propagandists like Judith Miller masquerading as reporters. They blow hot air all over the AM airwaves with people like Limbaugh and Hannity. They have the repulsive Bill O'Reilly on television advocating a terrorist attack on San Francisco (when he's not sexually harassing women or writing porn). This story by Stephen Labaton is at www.nytimes.com:
Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
A scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics.
BUSH TACTICS OF SMEAR AND FEAR
With his approval ratings melting down and scandals exploding like Fourth of July fireworks, George W. Bush and his attack dogs are trying to change the focus. The disaster in Iraq isn't Bush's fault, you see. Poor George was misled by faulty intelligence and,besides, those nasty Democrats saw the same intelligence and voted for the war. So there! The truth is that the Democrats didn't see the same intelligence that Bush saw. The intelligence Bush provided to Congress conveniently left out facts that didn't support the administration case. To demonstrate how little credibility Bush has, just remember how Bush claimed Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. That is demonstrably false. In this article Robert Parry looks at the real history, not the Bush version. This is at www.consortiumnews.com:
At Consortiumnews.com, we questioned Bush’s claims about Iraq’s WMD in 2002 as well as the wishful thinking underlying his invasion strategy in 2003. [See, for instance, “Misleading the Nation to War” and “Bay of Pigs Meets Black Hawk Down.”]
But we also have noted that perhaps the strongest evidence of Bush’s proclivity to lie about Iraq came after the invasion, when he began falsifying the record – rewriting history – with claims that Saddam Hussein had barred U.N. weapons inspectors from entering Iraq. Hussein’s “defiance” supposedly left Bush no choice but to invade.
So, while it may be impossible to divine whether Bush really believed that Hussein had WMD stockpiles, it is undeniable that Bush knew that his assertion about Hussein barring U.N. inspectors was false. The inspectors returned to Iraq in November 2002 and remained until they were forced out by Bush in March 2003 to let the invasion proceed.
BUSH'S TAX CUTS HAVEN'T PRODUCED BETTER ECONOMY
One of the great myths right-wingers parroted after Ronald Reagan's administration was what a rousing success Reagan's tax cuts for the rich were. The economy just bopped along, according to them. In reality, the economy didn't produce much at all in really good jobs, but we did get huge deficits. Right-wingers promised the apocalypse when Bill Clinton wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, and we had an economy so successful we were creating budget surpluses. Along came George W. Bush and more tax cuts for the rich and we have mountainous deficits, lousy jobs, stagnant wages, and red ink as far as the eye can see. In this column Molly Ivins talks about the right-wing love affair with tax cuts for the rich. The column is at www.alternet.org:
Lee Price of the Economic Policy Institute points out: "The fact that all major economic indicators are higher today than in early 2001 does not mean the tax cuts have been beneficial. Since the Great Depression, the resilient U.S. economy has always had gains over such four-year periods. The appropriate question to ask is: How well has the economy performed compared to similar periods in the past? If the last four years of tax cuts had worked as promised, the economy should have done better than in previous cycles, when taxes were either not cut or cut much less." We all down for that?
Unfortunately, the EPI concludes, "By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones, including that of the 1990s, which saw major tax increases."
IMPEACH BUSH
RIGHT-WING PBS CHIEF BROKE LAW REPEATEDLY
Kenneth Tomlinson, who stepped down as head of PBS, was found to have repeatedly broken federal law in his efforts to turn PBS into a version of FOX News. That's according to a report by the PBS inspector general. It's not enough that right-wingers already own almost all the media in this country. They put "journalists" like Armstrong Williams on the payroll. They have propagandists like Judith Miller masquerading as reporters. They blow hot air all over the AM airwaves with people like Limbaugh and Hannity. They have the repulsive Bill O'Reilly on television advocating a terrorist attack on San Francisco (when he's not sexually harassing women or writing porn). This story by Stephen Labaton is at www.nytimes.com:
Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
A scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics.
BUSH TACTICS OF SMEAR AND FEAR
With his approval ratings melting down and scandals exploding like Fourth of July fireworks, George W. Bush and his attack dogs are trying to change the focus. The disaster in Iraq isn't Bush's fault, you see. Poor George was misled by faulty intelligence and,besides, those nasty Democrats saw the same intelligence and voted for the war. So there! The truth is that the Democrats didn't see the same intelligence that Bush saw. The intelligence Bush provided to Congress conveniently left out facts that didn't support the administration case. To demonstrate how little credibility Bush has, just remember how Bush claimed Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. That is demonstrably false. In this article Robert Parry looks at the real history, not the Bush version. This is at www.consortiumnews.com:
At Consortiumnews.com, we questioned Bush’s claims about Iraq’s WMD in 2002 as well as the wishful thinking underlying his invasion strategy in 2003. [See, for instance, “Misleading the Nation to War” and “Bay of Pigs Meets Black Hawk Down.”]
But we also have noted that perhaps the strongest evidence of Bush’s proclivity to lie about Iraq came after the invasion, when he began falsifying the record – rewriting history – with claims that Saddam Hussein had barred U.N. weapons inspectors from entering Iraq. Hussein’s “defiance” supposedly left Bush no choice but to invade.
So, while it may be impossible to divine whether Bush really believed that Hussein had WMD stockpiles, it is undeniable that Bush knew that his assertion about Hussein barring U.N. inspectors was false. The inspectors returned to Iraq in November 2002 and remained until they were forced out by Bush in March 2003 to let the invasion proceed.
BUSH'S TAX CUTS HAVEN'T PRODUCED BETTER ECONOMY
One of the great myths right-wingers parroted after Ronald Reagan's administration was what a rousing success Reagan's tax cuts for the rich were. The economy just bopped along, according to them. In reality, the economy didn't produce much at all in really good jobs, but we did get huge deficits. Right-wingers promised the apocalypse when Bill Clinton wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, and we had an economy so successful we were creating budget surpluses. Along came George W. Bush and more tax cuts for the rich and we have mountainous deficits, lousy jobs, stagnant wages, and red ink as far as the eye can see. In this column Molly Ivins talks about the right-wing love affair with tax cuts for the rich. The column is at www.alternet.org:
Lee Price of the Economic Policy Institute points out: "The fact that all major economic indicators are higher today than in early 2001 does not mean the tax cuts have been beneficial. Since the Great Depression, the resilient U.S. economy has always had gains over such four-year periods. The appropriate question to ask is: How well has the economy performed compared to similar periods in the past? If the last four years of tax cuts had worked as promised, the economy should have done better than in previous cycles, when taxes were either not cut or cut much less." We all down for that?
Unfortunately, the EPI concludes, "By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones, including that of the 1990s, which saw major tax increases."
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
NOVEMBER 15, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
ARNIE'S TRAVELING COMPANIONS
After getting drubbed in last week's election, Governor Groper is in China to supposedly open up Chinese markets for California goods. It's interesting, though, to look at the people accompanying Arnie to China, the usual coterie of high bucks contributors to his campaigns. Right-wingers, who love power and graft, don't have a problem with this, of course, but the rest of us should. This article by Jamie Court is at www.latimes.com:
GOV. ARNOLD Schwarzenegger is making a high-profile trade trip to China this week. It's supposed to benefit you and me by opening up Chinese markets for California goods. But the guest list is a dead giveaway: Of the 80 businessmen, government officials and others accompanying the governor, about two dozen are big-bucks Schwarzenegger supporters who have together contributed more than $2.5 million to his campaign committees.
REPUBS STIFF 9/11 GROUND ZERO WORKERS
The Republican led Congress is stripping $125 million that had been promised to ground zero workers in New York on 9/11. We know that the EPA, under Christine Todd Whitman, lied about the contaminants in the area of the downed World Trade Center. Many of the firemen and others who responded on 9/11 and the days after are suffering ill health from exposure to toxic substances. Bush liked to use firemen as props for his photo-op when he broke out the bullhorn, but we have other priorities now--things like tax cuts for the rich. This article by Devlin Barrett is at news.yahoo.com:
Congressional budget negotiators have decided to take back $125 million in Sept. 11 aid from New York, which had fought to keep the money to treat sick and injured ground zero workers, lawmakers said Tuesday.
New York officials had sought for months to hold onto the funding, originally meant to cover increased worker compensation costs stemming from the 2001 terror attacks.
But a massive labor and health spending bill moving fitfully through House-Senate negotiations would take back that funding, lawmakers said.
BUSH IS REWRITING HISTORY
In two recent speeches George W. Bush has charged that his critics are "rewriting history." Bush's insinuation is that members of Congress voted for the war based on the same intelligence that he, Bush, saw, and that now those same Democrats are charging the administration with misleading Congress and the American people. But the evidence shows that Bush did not share the same intelligence he saw with members of Congress. The administration left out intelligence that didn't support its case. He also doesn't mention that the rush to war was just prior to midterm elections when the issue wouldn't get the attention it properly deserved. This column by E. J. Dionne is at www.workingforchange.com:
The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate” who “voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power” thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Saddam.
By linking the war on terror to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.
IMPEACH BUSH
ARNIE'S TRAVELING COMPANIONS
After getting drubbed in last week's election, Governor Groper is in China to supposedly open up Chinese markets for California goods. It's interesting, though, to look at the people accompanying Arnie to China, the usual coterie of high bucks contributors to his campaigns. Right-wingers, who love power and graft, don't have a problem with this, of course, but the rest of us should. This article by Jamie Court is at www.latimes.com:
GOV. ARNOLD Schwarzenegger is making a high-profile trade trip to China this week. It's supposed to benefit you and me by opening up Chinese markets for California goods. But the guest list is a dead giveaway: Of the 80 businessmen, government officials and others accompanying the governor, about two dozen are big-bucks Schwarzenegger supporters who have together contributed more than $2.5 million to his campaign committees.
REPUBS STIFF 9/11 GROUND ZERO WORKERS
The Republican led Congress is stripping $125 million that had been promised to ground zero workers in New York on 9/11. We know that the EPA, under Christine Todd Whitman, lied about the contaminants in the area of the downed World Trade Center. Many of the firemen and others who responded on 9/11 and the days after are suffering ill health from exposure to toxic substances. Bush liked to use firemen as props for his photo-op when he broke out the bullhorn, but we have other priorities now--things like tax cuts for the rich. This article by Devlin Barrett is at news.yahoo.com:
Congressional budget negotiators have decided to take back $125 million in Sept. 11 aid from New York, which had fought to keep the money to treat sick and injured ground zero workers, lawmakers said Tuesday.
New York officials had sought for months to hold onto the funding, originally meant to cover increased worker compensation costs stemming from the 2001 terror attacks.
But a massive labor and health spending bill moving fitfully through House-Senate negotiations would take back that funding, lawmakers said.
BUSH IS REWRITING HISTORY
In two recent speeches George W. Bush has charged that his critics are "rewriting history." Bush's insinuation is that members of Congress voted for the war based on the same intelligence that he, Bush, saw, and that now those same Democrats are charging the administration with misleading Congress and the American people. But the evidence shows that Bush did not share the same intelligence he saw with members of Congress. The administration left out intelligence that didn't support its case. He also doesn't mention that the rush to war was just prior to midterm elections when the issue wouldn't get the attention it properly deserved. This column by E. J. Dionne is at www.workingforchange.com:
The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate” who “voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power” thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Saddam.
By linking the war on terror to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.
Monday, November 14, 2005
NOVEMBER 14, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
PRESIDENT CARTER ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Former President Jimmy Carter is a honorable man, and I think his presidency has often been unfairly maligned. President Carter endeavored to expand human rights; George W. Bush is taking away rights. President Carter respected the environment; George W. Bush thinks the environment is something to be exploited by big corporations. President Carter sought peace by peaceful means; George W. Bush is the world's preeminent bully and has killed thousands of innocent civilians. This article by President Carter is at www.commondreams.org:
Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.
These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.
BUSH IS LYING AGAIN
The Bush administration is busily trying to trash anti-war critics by claiming that Democrats who question the war are "rewriting history" or are "irresponsible." The Bushies are in a particular snit about charges they misled the nation into war. I believe the evidence is clear and without doubt that Bush misled the country into war. That is a lot of what is driving the Valerie Plame leak scandal. Bush and company wanted to push the idea that Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear weapon. They claimed that Hussein was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger for making that weapon. Joseph Wilson found no evidence supporting that claim. That threw a serious monkey wrench into Bush's war plans. To get revenge against Ambassador Wilson, they outed his wife as a CIA agent. We also have the Downing Street Memos showing that the administration was "fixing" intelligence. We have the record of PNAC, closely associated with Bush, beating the drum for war years before 9/11. In this column David Corn looks at Bush's Veterans Day speech and the lies therein. The column is at www.commondreams.org. Bush said:
Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA . . .
THE DAYS OF WHINE AND ROSES
It's semi-entertaining to read the right-wing letters to the editor of The Fresno Bee after the trouncing their boy Arnold took last week. We hear that the unions "bought" the election. Never mind all the corporate money Arnie used to get the propositions on the ballot and to air the multitude of ads on TV. We hear the propositions described as "common sense"; common sense if you believe in a dictator maybe. We've also got sackcloth and ashes over the failure of proposition 73, which would have eroded freedom of choice. Proponents of minor girls having to give parental notification don't consider that many of these pregnancies are thanks to a parent or stepparent or male relative. We've seen an avalanche of disasters, our lives getting progressively worse thanks to conservatives, so I glad Californians woke up last week.
DOUG THOMPSON ON BUSH'S VETERANS DAY SPEECH
The vitriolic speech George W. Bush gave on Veterans Day was a classless act by a man without class. A man who started an unnecessary war used the occasion of Veterans Day to slam his critics, not acknowledging the sacrifice made by so many in the military under false pretenses. Doug Thompson says it pretty well in this column at www.smirkingchimp.com:
He has, without blinking an eye, sent more than 2,000 American military men and women, along with countless thousands of Iraqi civilians, to their deaths in a senseless invasion based on manufactured "evidence" and outright lies.
Then he has the gall to stand up on the day we set aside to honor those who served and continue to promote his lies and call those who see the truth traitors who aid the enemy.
Sorry George. Your lies don't play here or with the majority of American citizens. It is you who has sold out your country, who is a traitor and who has committed treason against your office, your country and humanity.
God may one day forgive you for your sins but I cannot. Neither can the wives, husbands, parents and relatives of those you sent to die in your dirty little war. Neither can memories of those who served, those we honored on Veterans Day and those whose memory you so callously dishonored with your propagandist pap.
IMPEACH BUSH
PRESIDENT CARTER ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Former President Jimmy Carter is a honorable man, and I think his presidency has often been unfairly maligned. President Carter endeavored to expand human rights; George W. Bush is taking away rights. President Carter respected the environment; George W. Bush thinks the environment is something to be exploited by big corporations. President Carter sought peace by peaceful means; George W. Bush is the world's preeminent bully and has killed thousands of innocent civilians. This article by President Carter is at www.commondreams.org:
Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.
These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.
BUSH IS LYING AGAIN
The Bush administration is busily trying to trash anti-war critics by claiming that Democrats who question the war are "rewriting history" or are "irresponsible." The Bushies are in a particular snit about charges they misled the nation into war. I believe the evidence is clear and without doubt that Bush misled the country into war. That is a lot of what is driving the Valerie Plame leak scandal. Bush and company wanted to push the idea that Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear weapon. They claimed that Hussein was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger for making that weapon. Joseph Wilson found no evidence supporting that claim. That threw a serious monkey wrench into Bush's war plans. To get revenge against Ambassador Wilson, they outed his wife as a CIA agent. We also have the Downing Street Memos showing that the administration was "fixing" intelligence. We have the record of PNAC, closely associated with Bush, beating the drum for war years before 9/11. In this column David Corn looks at Bush's Veterans Day speech and the lies therein. The column is at www.commondreams.org. Bush said:
Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA . . .
THE DAYS OF WHINE AND ROSES
It's semi-entertaining to read the right-wing letters to the editor of The Fresno Bee after the trouncing their boy Arnold took last week. We hear that the unions "bought" the election. Never mind all the corporate money Arnie used to get the propositions on the ballot and to air the multitude of ads on TV. We hear the propositions described as "common sense"; common sense if you believe in a dictator maybe. We've also got sackcloth and ashes over the failure of proposition 73, which would have eroded freedom of choice. Proponents of minor girls having to give parental notification don't consider that many of these pregnancies are thanks to a parent or stepparent or male relative. We've seen an avalanche of disasters, our lives getting progressively worse thanks to conservatives, so I glad Californians woke up last week.
DOUG THOMPSON ON BUSH'S VETERANS DAY SPEECH
The vitriolic speech George W. Bush gave on Veterans Day was a classless act by a man without class. A man who started an unnecessary war used the occasion of Veterans Day to slam his critics, not acknowledging the sacrifice made by so many in the military under false pretenses. Doug Thompson says it pretty well in this column at www.smirkingchimp.com:
He has, without blinking an eye, sent more than 2,000 American military men and women, along with countless thousands of Iraqi civilians, to their deaths in a senseless invasion based on manufactured "evidence" and outright lies.
Then he has the gall to stand up on the day we set aside to honor those who served and continue to promote his lies and call those who see the truth traitors who aid the enemy.
Sorry George. Your lies don't play here or with the majority of American citizens. It is you who has sold out your country, who is a traitor and who has committed treason against your office, your country and humanity.
God may one day forgive you for your sins but I cannot. Neither can the wives, husbands, parents and relatives of those you sent to die in your dirty little war. Neither can memories of those who served, those we honored on Veterans Day and those whose memory you so callously dishonored with your propagandist pap.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
NOVEMBER 13, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
PETULANT BUSH MAKES FOOL OF HIMSELF
I don't consider George W. Bush to be my president. He got into office the first time by stealing the election. He probably stole the 2004 election as well. But if I did consider him my president I would be mortified for my country. The man's constant display of snottiness and arrogance and just plain bad manners is appalling. George wasn't happy about staying up past his bedtime on his recent trip to South America. Then he didn't want to attend all the meetings the next day because he had already spent too much time at the state dinner the previous evening. This item comes from www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com:
Poor President Bush. Over the weekend he was an American fish out of water trapped in an Argentinean nightmare. During the first-leg of his four-day Latin America trip for a trade summit with Western Hemisphere leaders, Bush, normally fed by 7 and in his Doctor Dentons by 9pm and in dreamland shortly thereafter, was at the mercy of his foreign hosts who kept him out till--get this--12:40am Saturday. As is the culture in Latin America and Europe, for example, dinner isn't typically served until at least 10pm. To say Bush was a bit miffed would be an understatement. As such, his aides announced that he'd of course be attending the next day's session, but would miss the scheduled two-hour lunch with these same leaders because of "time served" the night before. An early exit was planned to get Bush on Air Force One by 4:05 to get to his next destination, Brazil.
RIGHT-WING PORN WRITERS
For all the talk of "family values" and the rest of their psuedo-religious schmaltz, prominent Republicans love to write porn. Lynne Cheney, Dick's wife, wrote a torrid lesbian love novel. Newt Gingrich wrote a sleazy novel. The newly-indicted Lewis Libby wrote a thoroughly disgusting novel about a young girl being raped by a bear. Bill O'Reilly, that friend of San Francisco terrorism, wrote a putrid novel about young girls on crack giving oral sex to their provider. The list is extensive. This article by David Rossie is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Consider the GOP gallery of purple prose purveyors:
William Safire, Newt Gingrich, Lynne Cheney, G. Gordon Liddy, William Buckley and Kenneth Starr. And let's not forget Bill O'Reilly, whose unwanted phone sex messages to a female colleague cost him a bundle in an out-of-court settlement.
Some might argue that it is unfair to include Starr in that crowd, but not if they read the pious pornographer's report of his investigation of the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater and Just Plain Bill's sordid romp with Monica Lewinsky and sundry others. According to Lauren Collins, writing in The New Yorker, in 1998 the Starr Report was nominated for consideration in the bad fictional sex writing contest that Britain's Literary Review holds each year.
RESULTS OF RIGHT-WING WAR ON GOVERNMENT
Ronald Reagan once observed that government was the problem and not the solution, conveniently forgetting that government helped out his own family during the Great Depression. Right-wingers have consistently demonized government, saying that government can't do anything right, and once they are in power right-wingers make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The United States had its greatest prosperity and progress in the years following World War II until the Nixon presidency. Since that time we have seen more right-wing control and influence of the government, and the standard of living for most Americans has declined. This article by Robert Steinback is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
It has been 25 years since Ronald Reagan declared war on the federal government, and five since President Bush and the extremist neo-conservatives took power intending to finish the job.
Is America better off? Are you?
The ranks of the poor are growing. Good jobs are fleeing overseas. Real wages have stagnated, personal debt is climbing and bankruptcies are soaring. Millions more Americans -- children in particular -- are without health coverage. Public schools are gasping for air. The rich are vastly richer -- but sharply higher fuel, tuition, insurance, health care and housing costs, to name just a few, have crippled middle-class progress.
The federal budget -- finally balanced just a few years ago -- is hemorrhaging red ink by the trillions, a burden we've callously dumped on our grandchildren.
IMPEACH BUSH
PETULANT BUSH MAKES FOOL OF HIMSELF
I don't consider George W. Bush to be my president. He got into office the first time by stealing the election. He probably stole the 2004 election as well. But if I did consider him my president I would be mortified for my country. The man's constant display of snottiness and arrogance and just plain bad manners is appalling. George wasn't happy about staying up past his bedtime on his recent trip to South America. Then he didn't want to attend all the meetings the next day because he had already spent too much time at the state dinner the previous evening. This item comes from www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com:
Poor President Bush. Over the weekend he was an American fish out of water trapped in an Argentinean nightmare. During the first-leg of his four-day Latin America trip for a trade summit with Western Hemisphere leaders, Bush, normally fed by 7 and in his Doctor Dentons by 9pm and in dreamland shortly thereafter, was at the mercy of his foreign hosts who kept him out till--get this--12:40am Saturday. As is the culture in Latin America and Europe, for example, dinner isn't typically served until at least 10pm. To say Bush was a bit miffed would be an understatement. As such, his aides announced that he'd of course be attending the next day's session, but would miss the scheduled two-hour lunch with these same leaders because of "time served" the night before. An early exit was planned to get Bush on Air Force One by 4:05 to get to his next destination, Brazil.
RIGHT-WING PORN WRITERS
For all the talk of "family values" and the rest of their psuedo-religious schmaltz, prominent Republicans love to write porn. Lynne Cheney, Dick's wife, wrote a torrid lesbian love novel. Newt Gingrich wrote a sleazy novel. The newly-indicted Lewis Libby wrote a thoroughly disgusting novel about a young girl being raped by a bear. Bill O'Reilly, that friend of San Francisco terrorism, wrote a putrid novel about young girls on crack giving oral sex to their provider. The list is extensive. This article by David Rossie is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Consider the GOP gallery of purple prose purveyors:
William Safire, Newt Gingrich, Lynne Cheney, G. Gordon Liddy, William Buckley and Kenneth Starr. And let's not forget Bill O'Reilly, whose unwanted phone sex messages to a female colleague cost him a bundle in an out-of-court settlement.
Some might argue that it is unfair to include Starr in that crowd, but not if they read the pious pornographer's report of his investigation of the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater and Just Plain Bill's sordid romp with Monica Lewinsky and sundry others. According to Lauren Collins, writing in The New Yorker, in 1998 the Starr Report was nominated for consideration in the bad fictional sex writing contest that Britain's Literary Review holds each year.
RESULTS OF RIGHT-WING WAR ON GOVERNMENT
Ronald Reagan once observed that government was the problem and not the solution, conveniently forgetting that government helped out his own family during the Great Depression. Right-wingers have consistently demonized government, saying that government can't do anything right, and once they are in power right-wingers make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The United States had its greatest prosperity and progress in the years following World War II until the Nixon presidency. Since that time we have seen more right-wing control and influence of the government, and the standard of living for most Americans has declined. This article by Robert Steinback is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
It has been 25 years since Ronald Reagan declared war on the federal government, and five since President Bush and the extremist neo-conservatives took power intending to finish the job.
Is America better off? Are you?
The ranks of the poor are growing. Good jobs are fleeing overseas. Real wages have stagnated, personal debt is climbing and bankruptcies are soaring. Millions more Americans -- children in particular -- are without health coverage. Public schools are gasping for air. The rich are vastly richer -- but sharply higher fuel, tuition, insurance, health care and housing costs, to name just a few, have crippled middle-class progress.
The federal budget -- finally balanced just a few years ago -- is hemorrhaging red ink by the trillions, a burden we've callously dumped on our grandchildren.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
NOVEMBER 12, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH REPEATING THE SAME OLD LIES
In his asinine Veterans Day speech George W. Bush attacked critics of his bloody war and claimed that members of Congress who voted for the war had the same intelligence as the administration. That's an outright lie. The intelligence Bush gave to Congress was misleading, inaccurate, or outright false. This item comes from www.thinkprogress.org:
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence” as his administration. This is patently false.
Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House:
FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]
FAILURE OF U.S. ECONOMIC PLANNING
For years now we've heard the virtues of free trade expounded by the political and financial elites. Globalization is a great thing, we're told. There are those vast untapped markets out there and globalization means prosperity for everyone. Well, not quite. We've seen countless jobs exported to other countries and the U.S. standard of living continues to fall as we lose our manufacturing capacity. Service sector jobs don't pay good wages. We have record balance of trade deficits. Other countries, such as India and China, are beginning to develop highly-skilled and highly-educated work forces. In this interview Clyde Prestowitz talks about the cloud hanging over the U.S. economy. The interview is at www.motherjones.com:
Over the last 30 or 40 years we also began to create a global economy. That meant this mass market suddenly became available to other countries. The unique economy of scale that was available only to American producers was available to producers in other countries. And there’s nothing wrong with that; it certain served US consumers. But unless US producers were going to get the same kind of open markets abroad that the foreigners were getting here, then over a period of time there was going to be a disadvantage. In fact, foreign markets weren’t nearly as open as US markets, and to some extent the advantages of economies of scale shifted. If you were a Japanese producer you now had access to the Japanese market and the US market. But US producers didn’t have the same kind of access to the Japanese market. The rest of the world, particularly Asia, developed a growth strategy based on high investment, which requires high saving, and excess production, which meant export-led growth. So while the US was building a consumption machine—via, for example, home equity loans, credit card solicitations, and numerous tax incentives to consume—the rest of the world, particularly Asia, was building a production machine.
JOHN TIERNEY: GLOBALIZATION SHILL
I haven't read John Tierney's columns in The New York Times, but it doesn't sound like I've missed much. Tierney is of one of the elites trumpeting the wonders of globalization and taking shots at leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who is not properly on board. Tierney's evidently likes to cite the accomplishments of Chile, once under the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, and Pinochet's aggressive pro-market approach to government. In this column Amitabh Pal analyzes Tierney's analysis. The column is at www.progressive.org:
Tierney paints a study in contrast between Venezuela and Chile, writing that in Venezuela, “poverty rate has risen above 50 percent,” allegedly due to Hugo Chavez’s failed policies, while “the poverty rate has declined sharply in Chile, to about 20 percent,” supposedly due to its adoption of free-market principles.
But as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy Research points out, Venezuela’s poverty rate is not quite an indictment of Hugo Chavez’s statist approach. “From 1970-1998 per capita income in Venezuela fell by 35 percent,” Weisbrot writes. “Since the present government took office, per capita income growth is about flat, and will likely be positive at year's end.”
Weisbrot also points out that rapid growth (17.8 percent) over 2004 will quite likely produce very different poverty rates in the near future, and that “there has been a significant improvement in the lives of the poor—the majority of Venezuelans—in terms of access to health care and other services, as well as subsidized food.”
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH REPEATING THE SAME OLD LIES
In his asinine Veterans Day speech George W. Bush attacked critics of his bloody war and claimed that members of Congress who voted for the war had the same intelligence as the administration. That's an outright lie. The intelligence Bush gave to Congress was misleading, inaccurate, or outright false. This item comes from www.thinkprogress.org:
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence” as his administration. This is patently false.
Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House:
FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]
FAILURE OF U.S. ECONOMIC PLANNING
For years now we've heard the virtues of free trade expounded by the political and financial elites. Globalization is a great thing, we're told. There are those vast untapped markets out there and globalization means prosperity for everyone. Well, not quite. We've seen countless jobs exported to other countries and the U.S. standard of living continues to fall as we lose our manufacturing capacity. Service sector jobs don't pay good wages. We have record balance of trade deficits. Other countries, such as India and China, are beginning to develop highly-skilled and highly-educated work forces. In this interview Clyde Prestowitz talks about the cloud hanging over the U.S. economy. The interview is at www.motherjones.com:
Over the last 30 or 40 years we also began to create a global economy. That meant this mass market suddenly became available to other countries. The unique economy of scale that was available only to American producers was available to producers in other countries. And there’s nothing wrong with that; it certain served US consumers. But unless US producers were going to get the same kind of open markets abroad that the foreigners were getting here, then over a period of time there was going to be a disadvantage. In fact, foreign markets weren’t nearly as open as US markets, and to some extent the advantages of economies of scale shifted. If you were a Japanese producer you now had access to the Japanese market and the US market. But US producers didn’t have the same kind of access to the Japanese market. The rest of the world, particularly Asia, developed a growth strategy based on high investment, which requires high saving, and excess production, which meant export-led growth. So while the US was building a consumption machine—via, for example, home equity loans, credit card solicitations, and numerous tax incentives to consume—the rest of the world, particularly Asia, was building a production machine.
JOHN TIERNEY: GLOBALIZATION SHILL
I haven't read John Tierney's columns in The New York Times, but it doesn't sound like I've missed much. Tierney is of one of the elites trumpeting the wonders of globalization and taking shots at leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who is not properly on board. Tierney's evidently likes to cite the accomplishments of Chile, once under the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, and Pinochet's aggressive pro-market approach to government. In this column Amitabh Pal analyzes Tierney's analysis. The column is at www.progressive.org:
Tierney paints a study in contrast between Venezuela and Chile, writing that in Venezuela, “poverty rate has risen above 50 percent,” allegedly due to Hugo Chavez’s failed policies, while “the poverty rate has declined sharply in Chile, to about 20 percent,” supposedly due to its adoption of free-market principles.
But as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy Research points out, Venezuela’s poverty rate is not quite an indictment of Hugo Chavez’s statist approach. “From 1970-1998 per capita income in Venezuela fell by 35 percent,” Weisbrot writes. “Since the present government took office, per capita income growth is about flat, and will likely be positive at year's end.”
Weisbrot also points out that rapid growth (17.8 percent) over 2004 will quite likely produce very different poverty rates in the near future, and that “there has been a significant improvement in the lives of the poor—the majority of Venezuelans—in terms of access to health care and other services, as well as subsidized food.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)