March 31, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MONEY FLOWING TO THE TOP
Capitalism has always been a system that tends to reward a few at the expense of the many. The reforms enacted during the New Deal helped to mitigate some of the worst excesses of capitalism, but since the Reagan presidency we've been running full speed in reverse. We're seeing income gaps on a par with what we saw during the Gilded Age. Globalization is giving corporations the perfect excuse for depressing wages at home and abroad. This item by David Sirota is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
As I noted last week, media pundits like Sam Donaldson simply cannot understand why polls show the public is so down on the economic direction of our country. These commentators - who are supposed to reflect the true pulse of America - look at today's Wall Street Journal headline blaring that "Corporate Pretax Profits Jump 14.4% - Strongest Gain Since 1992" and wonder: why, oh dear god why, aren't ordinary Americans aren't jumping with joy?
The answer, as I note in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, is simple: if you take the five seconds it takes to actually look at the underlying data, you see that those profits aren't actually benefitting ordinary workers - they are increasingly benefitting only those at the very top of the economic ladder. The Journal notes that "Corporate profits accounted for 11.6% of gross domestic product in the fourth quarter -- the biggest share of the nation's income companies have taken since 1966." In other words, the amount being pocketed by corporations - as opposed to being shared with their employees - is the highest its been in 40 years - a situation we already knew was occurring thanks to earlier stats showing workers wages are stagnating.
ALTERNATIVE TO CAPITALISM
Foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers usually spit out the word "socialist" like an epithet. Social Security is socialist. Redistribution of wealth in the form of a progressive income tax is socialist. Almost any social program is socialist, according to them. When you look at the reality of global capitalism you have to wonder if socialism is so terrible. I believe a mixed economy, the kind we had from FDR through the Nixon years, is the best system. It lets capitalism do what it does best and it reins in the worst parts of capitalism. This article by Ronald Aronson is at www.commondreams.org:
Successful ideological and political campaigns close up the space in which imagination might conceive of a world different from the status quo. Alternatives become "unthinkable." In contrast, for two generations, between 1917 and 1989, the prospect of social change and political action worldwide were nurtured by the competition between two different world-embracing economic systems. Ugly as it was in so many ways, the Soviet Union not only spurred imitators but stimulated and sometimes supported resistance movements and, more relevant to us, along with the presence of vigorous socialist movements and ideas it encouraged thinking and acting toward alternatives that would be neither capitalist nor Communist. The 1930s through the '70s saw important and still relevant efforts at social change led by anarchists (Spain), social democrats (Scandinavia), non-Stalinist Communists (Yugoslavia, Italy), coalitions of socialists and Communists (Chile), and coalitions of leftists and less ideological forces of national liberation (Nicaragua, South Africa). Until the end of the cold war, alternatives to capitalism and Communism seemed both thinkable and possible.
REMEMBERING CESAR CHAVEZ
Today is a state holiday in recognition of the birthday of farm labor leader Cesar Chavez. Back in the 1960s Cesar Chavez led an active effort to unionize farm workers, mostly Latino. It's hard to believe that at one time things like the short-handled hoe were in common use, or that such basics as water and restroom facilities were denied to farm workers. It's an interesting twist that Latino workers have been marching against a Draconian immigration law being debated in Congress. It's too bad Cesar Chavez isn't here now. This article by Rachel Uranga is at www.commondreams.org:
Marches, walkouts and calls for a boycott.
The immigrants-rights protests of the past week have sparked Latinos' passion like nothing since the farm workers marches and grape boycotts led by Cesar Chavez in the 1960s and '70s - drawing political parallels and generational ties.
Considered by many to be the first to attract Latinos to a massive U.S. social-justice movement, the legacy and tactics of Chavez - whose birthday is being celebrated today across the state - has been invoked by organizers of the recent rallies, from calls for boycotts to chants of "Si, se puede" - "Yes, we can."
"This is the formation of a new civil-rights movement," said labor leader Delores Huerta, who worked with Chavez. "Nothing would have changed for farm workers unless we hadn't marched and lobbied, and that is the same thing that is happening."
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
March 29, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ALL THE UNANSWERED 9/11 QUESTIONS
When you step back from the attacks on 9/11 you start to wonder how this tragedy occurred. We know about all the failures to stop the terrorists from hijacking the planes. We know about Bush ignoring a Presidential Daily Briefing that flatly stated Osama bin Laden was prepared to strike inside the United States. But why, when it became obvious that four airliners were evidently hijacked, were military aircraft not there to intercept and force down the planes? It gets even more ominous when you examine the unusual trading in airline stocks just prior to 9/11 or when you look at the way the World Trade Center buildings collapsed as though they had been blown up from within. Some would immediately dismiss this is a crackpot conspiracy theory. But is it? Mark Morford writes about it in this column at www.sfgate.com:
But there is also a very smart, grounded, intelligent and surprisingly large faction -- which includes eyewitnesses, Sept. 11 widows, former generals, pilots, professors, engineers, WTC maintenance workers and many, many more -- who point to a rather shocking pile of evidence that says there is simply no way 19 fanatics with box cutters sent by some bearded lunatic in a cave could have pulled off the most perfectly orchestrated air attack of the century. Not without serious help, anyway.
Whose help? This, of course, is the biggest question of all, one which many of the more well-researched theories go a surprisingly long way toward answering.
You have to sift and sort. There are disturbing questions about collapse speeds and controlled demolitions and why the towers fell when the all-steel infrastructure was designed to easily withstand the temperatures of any sort of fire, even burning jet fuel. There are questions of the mysterious, media-documented blasts deep in the WTC towers that took place after the planes hit. There are questions of why there was such a short-selling spree on shares of American Airlines and United Air Lines the day before the attack, huge doubts about the failures of NORAD and the FAA, the bizarre case of the missing plane in the Pentagon crash, and also the downing of Flight 93 where, according to the coroner, no blood or major plane wreckage was actually found. There is, ultimately, the stunning failure of the entire multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Just for starters.
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECALL PRESIDENTS
I didn't support the recall of California Governor Gray Davis, and I don't believe our new Governor Groper has done a good job. But the disaster that is the Bush administration makes me believe that some sort of recall mechanism should be made a part of the Constitution. Impeachment is a slow and cumbersome process, very much subject to politics. As bad as George W. Bush is, there is very little support in the highest levels of government to impeach him. His scant support in the polls, however, would give voters a chance to make a judgment about his fitness to remain in office. In this column Kevin Phillips discusses the problems with impeachment and the reasons for a recall. The column is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Which bring me to the remedy sought a few years back when Californians got tired of their governor, Gray Davis. Under state law, they were able to mount a recall effort that took away his job. To set up a similar federal mechanism, a constitutional amendment would seem necessary, and that could not happen overnight. Still, with impeachment losing credibility as a constitutional remedy, the possibility of having an "incompetent" president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order.
PATRIOTS PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
George W. Bush and his minions have used the rhetoric of "You're either with us or against us." If you buy into this rhetoric, you believe that criticism of Bush is unpatriotic. But real patriotism is protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Bush has consistently run roughshod over the Constitution and international law. He attacked Iraq illegally. He has violated human rights by authorizing torture. He has detained people and deprived them of the right of habeas corpus. Paul Craig Roberts has a column at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration, or a political party.
The separation of powers and civil liberties that were bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers are the protectors of our liberty. Bush, who swore on the Bible that he would defend and uphold the Constitution, has made it clear that he will not let the Constitution get in the way of expanding the powers of his office.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ALL THE UNANSWERED 9/11 QUESTIONS
When you step back from the attacks on 9/11 you start to wonder how this tragedy occurred. We know about all the failures to stop the terrorists from hijacking the planes. We know about Bush ignoring a Presidential Daily Briefing that flatly stated Osama bin Laden was prepared to strike inside the United States. But why, when it became obvious that four airliners were evidently hijacked, were military aircraft not there to intercept and force down the planes? It gets even more ominous when you examine the unusual trading in airline stocks just prior to 9/11 or when you look at the way the World Trade Center buildings collapsed as though they had been blown up from within. Some would immediately dismiss this is a crackpot conspiracy theory. But is it? Mark Morford writes about it in this column at www.sfgate.com:
But there is also a very smart, grounded, intelligent and surprisingly large faction -- which includes eyewitnesses, Sept. 11 widows, former generals, pilots, professors, engineers, WTC maintenance workers and many, many more -- who point to a rather shocking pile of evidence that says there is simply no way 19 fanatics with box cutters sent by some bearded lunatic in a cave could have pulled off the most perfectly orchestrated air attack of the century. Not without serious help, anyway.
Whose help? This, of course, is the biggest question of all, one which many of the more well-researched theories go a surprisingly long way toward answering.
You have to sift and sort. There are disturbing questions about collapse speeds and controlled demolitions and why the towers fell when the all-steel infrastructure was designed to easily withstand the temperatures of any sort of fire, even burning jet fuel. There are questions of the mysterious, media-documented blasts deep in the WTC towers that took place after the planes hit. There are questions of why there was such a short-selling spree on shares of American Airlines and United Air Lines the day before the attack, huge doubts about the failures of NORAD and the FAA, the bizarre case of the missing plane in the Pentagon crash, and also the downing of Flight 93 where, according to the coroner, no blood or major plane wreckage was actually found. There is, ultimately, the stunning failure of the entire multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Just for starters.
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECALL PRESIDENTS
I didn't support the recall of California Governor Gray Davis, and I don't believe our new Governor Groper has done a good job. But the disaster that is the Bush administration makes me believe that some sort of recall mechanism should be made a part of the Constitution. Impeachment is a slow and cumbersome process, very much subject to politics. As bad as George W. Bush is, there is very little support in the highest levels of government to impeach him. His scant support in the polls, however, would give voters a chance to make a judgment about his fitness to remain in office. In this column Kevin Phillips discusses the problems with impeachment and the reasons for a recall. The column is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Which bring me to the remedy sought a few years back when Californians got tired of their governor, Gray Davis. Under state law, they were able to mount a recall effort that took away his job. To set up a similar federal mechanism, a constitutional amendment would seem necessary, and that could not happen overnight. Still, with impeachment losing credibility as a constitutional remedy, the possibility of having an "incompetent" president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order.
PATRIOTS PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
George W. Bush and his minions have used the rhetoric of "You're either with us or against us." If you buy into this rhetoric, you believe that criticism of Bush is unpatriotic. But real patriotism is protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Bush has consistently run roughshod over the Constitution and international law. He attacked Iraq illegally. He has violated human rights by authorizing torture. He has detained people and deprived them of the right of habeas corpus. Paul Craig Roberts has a column at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration, or a political party.
The separation of powers and civil liberties that were bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers are the protectors of our liberty. Bush, who swore on the Bible that he would defend and uphold the Constitution, has made it clear that he will not let the Constitution get in the way of expanding the powers of his office.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
March 28, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IRAQ WAS IN THE CROSSHAIRS
Prior to launching the attack on Iraq, George W. Bush was proclaiming his support for a second United Nations resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to disarm or face war. But in private Bush had already decided on war. We know this from a new memo that has surfaced. The memo details a conversation Bush had with British Prime Minister Tony Blair seven weeks before the war started. The memo also shows that weapons of mass destruction weren't that much of an issue. Bush would get his war no matter what. This article by Don Van Natta Jr. is at www.iht.com:
In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
HERE COME CHINA AND INDIA
The policies of George W. Bush, both economically and militarily, have weakened the country and have set the stage for the growing economies of India and China to overtake us. Bush and the neocons around him have overreached in their foreign policy. They made a fundamentalist group of nuts like al-Qaeda the center of their foreign policy when al-Qaeda should have been treated as a criminal group. They have created massive deficits, they are bleeding the treasury dry with the spending on Iraq, and they have made it difficult to maintain and grow a middle class with the thrust toward globalization. This article by Martin Jacques is at www.commondreams.org:
It is clear that the US occupation of Iraq has been a disaster from almost every angle one can think of, most of all for the Iraqi people, not least for American foreign policy. The unpicking of the imperial logic that led to it has already commenced: Hyde's speech is an example, and so is Francis Fukuyama's new book After the Neocons, a merciless critique of Bush's foreign policy and the school of thought that lay behind it. The war was a delayed product of the end of the cold war and the triumphalist mentality that imbued the neocons and eventually seduced the US. But triumphalism is a dangerous brew, more suited to intoxication than hard-headed analysis. And so it has proved. The US still has to reap the whirlwind for its stunning feat of imperial overreach.
In becoming so catastrophically engaged in the Middle East, making the region its overwhelming global priority, it downgraded the importance of everywhere else, taking its eye off the ball in a crucial region such as east Asia, which in the long run will be far more important to the US's strategic interests than the Middle East. As such, the Iraqi adventure represented a major misreading of global trends and how they are likely to impact on the US. Hyde is clearly thinking in these terms: "We are well advanced into an unformed era in which new and unfamiliar enemies are gathering forces, where a phalanx of aspiring competitors must inevitably constrain and focus options. In a world where the ratios of strength narrow, the consequences of miscalculation will become progressively more debilitating. The costs of golden theories [by which he means the worldwide promotion of democracy] will be paid for in the base coin of our interests."
WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON WRITE NOW?
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, laid out the case against British King George III. If Jefferson were writing the Declaration today, there would be a long list of crimes by George W. Bush. This article by Sam Newlund is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
On July 4, 1776, a rebellious group of colonists adopted America's historic Declaration of Independence, lambasting England's King George III for "a long train of abuses and usurpations." One by one they succinctly listed the offenses, such as:
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." Twenty-six other charges made the list.
That was nearly 230 years ago. Now it's time for a bill of particulars on another George -- President George W. Bush. Items ripe for this list have been rolling out with numbing consistency since he took office just over five years ago. Impeachment is now openly discussed.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IRAQ WAS IN THE CROSSHAIRS
Prior to launching the attack on Iraq, George W. Bush was proclaiming his support for a second United Nations resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to disarm or face war. But in private Bush had already decided on war. We know this from a new memo that has surfaced. The memo details a conversation Bush had with British Prime Minister Tony Blair seven weeks before the war started. The memo also shows that weapons of mass destruction weren't that much of an issue. Bush would get his war no matter what. This article by Don Van Natta Jr. is at www.iht.com:
In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
HERE COME CHINA AND INDIA
The policies of George W. Bush, both economically and militarily, have weakened the country and have set the stage for the growing economies of India and China to overtake us. Bush and the neocons around him have overreached in their foreign policy. They made a fundamentalist group of nuts like al-Qaeda the center of their foreign policy when al-Qaeda should have been treated as a criminal group. They have created massive deficits, they are bleeding the treasury dry with the spending on Iraq, and they have made it difficult to maintain and grow a middle class with the thrust toward globalization. This article by Martin Jacques is at www.commondreams.org:
It is clear that the US occupation of Iraq has been a disaster from almost every angle one can think of, most of all for the Iraqi people, not least for American foreign policy. The unpicking of the imperial logic that led to it has already commenced: Hyde's speech is an example, and so is Francis Fukuyama's new book After the Neocons, a merciless critique of Bush's foreign policy and the school of thought that lay behind it. The war was a delayed product of the end of the cold war and the triumphalist mentality that imbued the neocons and eventually seduced the US. But triumphalism is a dangerous brew, more suited to intoxication than hard-headed analysis. And so it has proved. The US still has to reap the whirlwind for its stunning feat of imperial overreach.
In becoming so catastrophically engaged in the Middle East, making the region its overwhelming global priority, it downgraded the importance of everywhere else, taking its eye off the ball in a crucial region such as east Asia, which in the long run will be far more important to the US's strategic interests than the Middle East. As such, the Iraqi adventure represented a major misreading of global trends and how they are likely to impact on the US. Hyde is clearly thinking in these terms: "We are well advanced into an unformed era in which new and unfamiliar enemies are gathering forces, where a phalanx of aspiring competitors must inevitably constrain and focus options. In a world where the ratios of strength narrow, the consequences of miscalculation will become progressively more debilitating. The costs of golden theories [by which he means the worldwide promotion of democracy] will be paid for in the base coin of our interests."
WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON WRITE NOW?
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, laid out the case against British King George III. If Jefferson were writing the Declaration today, there would be a long list of crimes by George W. Bush. This article by Sam Newlund is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
On July 4, 1776, a rebellious group of colonists adopted America's historic Declaration of Independence, lambasting England's King George III for "a long train of abuses and usurpations." One by one they succinctly listed the offenses, such as:
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." Twenty-six other charges made the list.
That was nearly 230 years ago. Now it's time for a bill of particulars on another George -- President George W. Bush. Items ripe for this list have been rolling out with numbing consistency since he took office just over five years ago. Impeachment is now openly discussed.
Monday, March 27, 2006
MARCH 27, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S POWER GRAB
Among the goals of George W. Bush and the people around him was restoring the imperial presidency. They felt that the presidency lost too much power after the Watergate scandal. They saw the attacks on 9/11 as the perfect opportunity to expand presidential powers. Just say you're at war and that the commander-in-chief has expanded powers and there you have it. The problem is that there really isn't a "war on terrorism." Terrorists are criminals, not affiliated with a political state. A "war on terror" could exist into infinity. The other problem is that the powers Bush claims are not recognized under the Constitution. This article by Joyce Appleby and Gary Hart is at http://hnn.us/articles/23297.html:
George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.
Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working in the White House, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.
WHY AM I SKEPTICAL?
New documents show that the FBI has been spying on groups that feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, and other activist groups. The FBI claims that their surveillance isn't ideological. Why am I skeptical? This is another throwback to the Nixon years when the government was actively monitoring and infiltrating antiwar groups. This article by Nicholas Riccardi is at www.latimes.com:
The FBI, while waging a highly publicized war against terrorism, has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, the agency's internal memos show.
For years, the FBI's definition of terrorism has included violence against property, such as the window-smashing during the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. That definition has led FBI investigations to online discussion boards, organizing meetings and demonstrations of a wide range of activist groups. Officials say that international terrorists pose the greatest threat to the nation but that they cannot ignore crimes committed by some activists.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S POWER GRAB
Among the goals of George W. Bush and the people around him was restoring the imperial presidency. They felt that the presidency lost too much power after the Watergate scandal. They saw the attacks on 9/11 as the perfect opportunity to expand presidential powers. Just say you're at war and that the commander-in-chief has expanded powers and there you have it. The problem is that there really isn't a "war on terrorism." Terrorists are criminals, not affiliated with a political state. A "war on terror" could exist into infinity. The other problem is that the powers Bush claims are not recognized under the Constitution. This article by Joyce Appleby and Gary Hart is at http://hnn.us/articles/23297.html:
George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.
Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working in the White House, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.
WHY AM I SKEPTICAL?
New documents show that the FBI has been spying on groups that feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, and other activist groups. The FBI claims that their surveillance isn't ideological. Why am I skeptical? This is another throwback to the Nixon years when the government was actively monitoring and infiltrating antiwar groups. This article by Nicholas Riccardi is at www.latimes.com:
The FBI, while waging a highly publicized war against terrorism, has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, the agency's internal memos show.
For years, the FBI's definition of terrorism has included violence against property, such as the window-smashing during the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. That definition has led FBI investigations to online discussion boards, organizing meetings and demonstrations of a wide range of activist groups. Officials say that international terrorists pose the greatest threat to the nation but that they cannot ignore crimes committed by some activists.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
MARCH 26, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RACIST GOP
Since the time of Richard Nixon the Republican party has used the race card. Nixon devised a "Southern strategy" to win over white Southerners who were angry about forced integration. Ronald Reagan talked about mythical "welfare queens." "Welfare queen" was a coded reference to African-American women. In recent years the GOP has used the race card against Hispanics. We saw a dramatic version of that with Proposition 187 in California during the administration of Pete Wilson. Now the GOP Congress is trying to play the race card again by going after immigrants, mostly Hispanic. But it may be boomeranging on them. In this piece Max Blumenthal writes about the reaction to the latest Republican piece of hate legislation. The article is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
A leading researcher of the neo-Confederate movement, Ed Sebesta, submitted an illuminating analysis of the GOP's immigration quandary to me by email yesterday. Here are some excerpts:
In regards to Hispanics and the GOP I think the big development is that Hispanics are immigrating in large numbers now into the Southeast, or I should say the former Confederate states, excepting Texas and Southern Florida. It isn't something largely confined to the Southwest and major urban centers outside the South. This is where the base of the Republican party is. There has developed a reaction against this immigration in these areas. The Neo-Confederate movement and a lot of other movements have taken up this issue...
These reactionary elements and others see immigration as an issue to take control of conservatism in the South, if not the nation...
Suddenly the Republican party is going to have to try to get votes from two groups that will be increasingly at odds with each other. Also, what happens to Hispanics in Alabama will get back to Hispanics in California.
WE'LL MISS YOU, BUCK
Buck Owens, one of my favorite musicians ever, died yesterday morning at the age of 76 in Bakersfield. My late brother was a huge Buck Owens fan and some of my best memories revolve around hearing Buck Owens music. I had the pleasure of going to the Crystal Palace in Bakersfield last July. I'll always remember that because my brother was there and alive and Buck Owens was up on stage performing. The "Bakersfield Sound" is my favorite music and Buck Owens was a major innovator and contributor to the Bakersfield Sound. I keep thinking of a song called "Sweethearts in Heaven" that Buck recorded. You wish that people like Buck Owens had more influence over world events than the likes of George W. Bush.
SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS
I'm getting the feeling Americans are living in a locked down society. The anti-immigration moves by Republicans are just an indication of how much control they want over all of our lives. A good example these days is the misuse of Social Security numbers. The Social Security system was originally designed to build pensions for retirees. It was never meant to be used as an ID system. Now you constantly get asked to provide your Social Security number to open bank accounts, to get a job, to get unemployment benefits, or whatever.
We've heard talk of a national ID card. All the centralization of data on each of us is dangerous. It's the worst combination of Big Brother government and fascism. If things continue as they are, the government will have dossiers on us that include our educational histories, our employment histories, our medical histories, our credit histories, what we purchase at the grocery store, what we read, what we watch, and what we look up on the Internet. It's time for government to get out of our private lives.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RACIST GOP
Since the time of Richard Nixon the Republican party has used the race card. Nixon devised a "Southern strategy" to win over white Southerners who were angry about forced integration. Ronald Reagan talked about mythical "welfare queens." "Welfare queen" was a coded reference to African-American women. In recent years the GOP has used the race card against Hispanics. We saw a dramatic version of that with Proposition 187 in California during the administration of Pete Wilson. Now the GOP Congress is trying to play the race card again by going after immigrants, mostly Hispanic. But it may be boomeranging on them. In this piece Max Blumenthal writes about the reaction to the latest Republican piece of hate legislation. The article is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
A leading researcher of the neo-Confederate movement, Ed Sebesta, submitted an illuminating analysis of the GOP's immigration quandary to me by email yesterday. Here are some excerpts:
In regards to Hispanics and the GOP I think the big development is that Hispanics are immigrating in large numbers now into the Southeast, or I should say the former Confederate states, excepting Texas and Southern Florida. It isn't something largely confined to the Southwest and major urban centers outside the South. This is where the base of the Republican party is. There has developed a reaction against this immigration in these areas. The Neo-Confederate movement and a lot of other movements have taken up this issue...
These reactionary elements and others see immigration as an issue to take control of conservatism in the South, if not the nation...
Suddenly the Republican party is going to have to try to get votes from two groups that will be increasingly at odds with each other. Also, what happens to Hispanics in Alabama will get back to Hispanics in California.
WE'LL MISS YOU, BUCK
Buck Owens, one of my favorite musicians ever, died yesterday morning at the age of 76 in Bakersfield. My late brother was a huge Buck Owens fan and some of my best memories revolve around hearing Buck Owens music. I had the pleasure of going to the Crystal Palace in Bakersfield last July. I'll always remember that because my brother was there and alive and Buck Owens was up on stage performing. The "Bakersfield Sound" is my favorite music and Buck Owens was a major innovator and contributor to the Bakersfield Sound. I keep thinking of a song called "Sweethearts in Heaven" that Buck recorded. You wish that people like Buck Owens had more influence over world events than the likes of George W. Bush.
SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS
I'm getting the feeling Americans are living in a locked down society. The anti-immigration moves by Republicans are just an indication of how much control they want over all of our lives. A good example these days is the misuse of Social Security numbers. The Social Security system was originally designed to build pensions for retirees. It was never meant to be used as an ID system. Now you constantly get asked to provide your Social Security number to open bank accounts, to get a job, to get unemployment benefits, or whatever.
We've heard talk of a national ID card. All the centralization of data on each of us is dangerous. It's the worst combination of Big Brother government and fascism. If things continue as they are, the government will have dossiers on us that include our educational histories, our employment histories, our medical histories, our credit histories, what we purchase at the grocery store, what we read, what we watch, and what we look up on the Internet. It's time for government to get out of our private lives.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
MARCH 25, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IMPEACHMENT CRIES GROWING
The Washington Post has an article about the possible impeachment of George W. Bush and why some Democrats don't think it's a good idea. We hear the argument that Republicans will use impeachment to energize their base this November. Isn't there the possibility that impeachment might also get more people out to vote for Democrats to impeach this incompetent liar? There is even an argument that maybe Bush hasn't committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," that maybe he invaded Iraq in good faith and even that his unconstitutional spying on Americans without warrants may not be impeachable. If that's the case, just what is impeachable? I think the evidence is clear that Bush lied about Iraq. In any case, an impeachment is a trial. It's an opportunity to present all the facts without all the sound bites, the right-wing blather, and the spin. This article by Michael Powell is at www.washingtonpost.com:
To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.
Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.
BUSH NOT MORALLY FIT FOR PRESIDENCY
George W. Bush is the most corrupt man to ever occupy the Oval Office. He lied us into war and members of his own family benefit from war profiteering. He has ignored the dangers of global climate change, even though we got horrendous evidence with Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans. He has rammed through massive tax cuts for his friends, and created mountainous deficits. Our economic security is in extreme peril. He has presided over the loss of millions of jobs. He has tried to destroy Social Security, a bulwark of our society since the New Deal. He signed a prescription drug bill into law that is massive giveaway to drug companies. He has illegally spied on American citizens. He failed to prevent the attacks on 9/11, even though there were numerous warnings. This article by Doug Thompson is at www.capitolhillblue.com:
Americans who tuned in for one of President George W. Bush's rare press conferences saw a cornered animal trying to squirm his way out of trouble by doing what he has always done - evading the truth.
Bush's attempt to showcase himself as a leader who could handle tough questions from the press corps fell just as flat as his unscripted town-meeting style appearance in Cleveland the day before.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IMPEACHMENT CRIES GROWING
The Washington Post has an article about the possible impeachment of George W. Bush and why some Democrats don't think it's a good idea. We hear the argument that Republicans will use impeachment to energize their base this November. Isn't there the possibility that impeachment might also get more people out to vote for Democrats to impeach this incompetent liar? There is even an argument that maybe Bush hasn't committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," that maybe he invaded Iraq in good faith and even that his unconstitutional spying on Americans without warrants may not be impeachable. If that's the case, just what is impeachable? I think the evidence is clear that Bush lied about Iraq. In any case, an impeachment is a trial. It's an opportunity to present all the facts without all the sound bites, the right-wing blather, and the spin. This article by Michael Powell is at www.washingtonpost.com:
To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.
Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.
BUSH NOT MORALLY FIT FOR PRESIDENCY
George W. Bush is the most corrupt man to ever occupy the Oval Office. He lied us into war and members of his own family benefit from war profiteering. He has ignored the dangers of global climate change, even though we got horrendous evidence with Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans. He has rammed through massive tax cuts for his friends, and created mountainous deficits. Our economic security is in extreme peril. He has presided over the loss of millions of jobs. He has tried to destroy Social Security, a bulwark of our society since the New Deal. He signed a prescription drug bill into law that is massive giveaway to drug companies. He has illegally spied on American citizens. He failed to prevent the attacks on 9/11, even though there were numerous warnings. This article by Doug Thompson is at www.capitolhillblue.com:
Americans who tuned in for one of President George W. Bush's rare press conferences saw a cornered animal trying to squirm his way out of trouble by doing what he has always done - evading the truth.
Bush's attempt to showcase himself as a leader who could handle tough questions from the press corps fell just as flat as his unscripted town-meeting style appearance in Cleveland the day before.
Friday, March 24, 2006
MARCH 24, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
STUCK IN IRAQ
I never believed what Bush and his administration were saying about Iraq. I didn't believe the phony presentation by Colin Powell before the United Nations. I thought we could have pursued Osama bin Laden without killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan. But lots of people in this country bought into the whole Bush case for war against Iraq. Iraq was a danger to us, Bush said. Saddam was a bad man who had to be removed. The war would be quick and cheap and the oil from Iraq would pay for the war many times over. Now here we are three years later, countless dead and maimed bodies later, billions of dollars from our treasury squandered, the world alienated from us. And we're stuck. That's the theme of Mark Morford's column at www.sfgate.com:
Bush is still immune, blind and dumb and still refusing to admit a single mistake, and yet he cannot be punished or impeached, if for no other reason than those who would do the impeaching are of his own party and they are simply loathe to admit how very severely wrong they were about just about everything. Hey, that sort of thing is what costs you elections.
The bad news is, even the most liberal estimate says we are locked in. We cannot leave Iraq, not now, not in a few months, perhaps not for years and years, not if we don't want the region to instantly devolve into a worse hell pit than it already is. The quagmire is too deep, the mess too wide, our supposed allegiances too shaky and the region sliding so quickly to the precipice of civil war that to exit now would be disastrous beyond even what Saddam could've accomplished on his worst day.
All we are left with is the larger question: Can we possibly learn anything from this? Is it possible to mature and progress as a nation, as a humanitarian force, as a result of our horrible mistakes, of our ability to be so easily misled and beaten down by a cabal of sneering neocon leaders who would just as soon shoot you as give you a handshake and a cigar?
LIFE IN TEMP LAND
I've gone through two layoffs in the "robust" Bush economy. One of the ways you deal with sudden layoffs is to go through a temporary agency in hopes you can get a job and transition into a more permanent job with benefits. But as a temp you are very, very expendable. I rediscovered that yesterday. I got an assignment with a big workman's comp insurance company called Zenith Insurance. They have a building in Fresno about the size of an aircraft hangar. You need an electronic key to move almost anywhere in the building. You have to read and agree to a massive document that covers all kinds of things like insider trading, software, violence in the workplace, harassment issues, and all the rest.
What struck me the most was the disorganization. They had requested my services through the temp agency, but when I got there they had no clue what I was going to do. First, you learn "lien pulling," but the person training you has to go to lunch, so you go to lunch, come back, and the trainer is in a long meeting. Then you do make work stuff like assemble or disassemble claim packets, which are things like brochures. At the end of a boring, depressing day you come home to get a call that you're not a "good fit" for the workman's comp stuff, even though you didn't get a chance to even learn it. Somehow this seems very emblematic of the Bush administration and its economic policy and corporatism in general. What is so all fired wonderful about capitalism?
TRAITS OF REPUBLICANS
We should have a list of adjectives that are synonymous with "Republicans." Words like greedy, predatory, selfish, uncaring, ruthless. This article by Bob Burnett looks at the character traits of Republicans. The article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
As a public service, here are the ten telltale signs of Republican plague:
1. You keep lying, even when it's apparent to everyone that you're lying: Insist that the situation in Iraq is not a civil war; Bush tax cuts are good for the economy; Republicans are fostering Democracy. Repeat things that are not only untrue, but are absurd: George W. Bush cares about civil rights. You can't stop; you're sick; you're a Republican.
2. No matter how bad things get, assert that President Bush is doing a great job. Even when there are obvious screw-ups--the reaction to 9/11, the occupation of Iraq, and the response to Katrina--block all meaningful investigations, no matter how impartial. Steadfastly maintain that Dubya knows what he's doing, even when it's apparent to most of the public that he not only doesn't have a plan to fix the problem, he doesn't get that there is a problem. You're inflexible; you're stuck; you're a Republican.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
STUCK IN IRAQ
I never believed what Bush and his administration were saying about Iraq. I didn't believe the phony presentation by Colin Powell before the United Nations. I thought we could have pursued Osama bin Laden without killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan. But lots of people in this country bought into the whole Bush case for war against Iraq. Iraq was a danger to us, Bush said. Saddam was a bad man who had to be removed. The war would be quick and cheap and the oil from Iraq would pay for the war many times over. Now here we are three years later, countless dead and maimed bodies later, billions of dollars from our treasury squandered, the world alienated from us. And we're stuck. That's the theme of Mark Morford's column at www.sfgate.com:
Bush is still immune, blind and dumb and still refusing to admit a single mistake, and yet he cannot be punished or impeached, if for no other reason than those who would do the impeaching are of his own party and they are simply loathe to admit how very severely wrong they were about just about everything. Hey, that sort of thing is what costs you elections.
The bad news is, even the most liberal estimate says we are locked in. We cannot leave Iraq, not now, not in a few months, perhaps not for years and years, not if we don't want the region to instantly devolve into a worse hell pit than it already is. The quagmire is too deep, the mess too wide, our supposed allegiances too shaky and the region sliding so quickly to the precipice of civil war that to exit now would be disastrous beyond even what Saddam could've accomplished on his worst day.
All we are left with is the larger question: Can we possibly learn anything from this? Is it possible to mature and progress as a nation, as a humanitarian force, as a result of our horrible mistakes, of our ability to be so easily misled and beaten down by a cabal of sneering neocon leaders who would just as soon shoot you as give you a handshake and a cigar?
LIFE IN TEMP LAND
I've gone through two layoffs in the "robust" Bush economy. One of the ways you deal with sudden layoffs is to go through a temporary agency in hopes you can get a job and transition into a more permanent job with benefits. But as a temp you are very, very expendable. I rediscovered that yesterday. I got an assignment with a big workman's comp insurance company called Zenith Insurance. They have a building in Fresno about the size of an aircraft hangar. You need an electronic key to move almost anywhere in the building. You have to read and agree to a massive document that covers all kinds of things like insider trading, software, violence in the workplace, harassment issues, and all the rest.
What struck me the most was the disorganization. They had requested my services through the temp agency, but when I got there they had no clue what I was going to do. First, you learn "lien pulling," but the person training you has to go to lunch, so you go to lunch, come back, and the trainer is in a long meeting. Then you do make work stuff like assemble or disassemble claim packets, which are things like brochures. At the end of a boring, depressing day you come home to get a call that you're not a "good fit" for the workman's comp stuff, even though you didn't get a chance to even learn it. Somehow this seems very emblematic of the Bush administration and its economic policy and corporatism in general. What is so all fired wonderful about capitalism?
TRAITS OF REPUBLICANS
We should have a list of adjectives that are synonymous with "Republicans." Words like greedy, predatory, selfish, uncaring, ruthless. This article by Bob Burnett looks at the character traits of Republicans. The article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
As a public service, here are the ten telltale signs of Republican plague:
1. You keep lying, even when it's apparent to everyone that you're lying: Insist that the situation in Iraq is not a civil war; Bush tax cuts are good for the economy; Republicans are fostering Democracy. Repeat things that are not only untrue, but are absurd: George W. Bush cares about civil rights. You can't stop; you're sick; you're a Republican.
2. No matter how bad things get, assert that President Bush is doing a great job. Even when there are obvious screw-ups--the reaction to 9/11, the occupation of Iraq, and the response to Katrina--block all meaningful investigations, no matter how impartial. Steadfastly maintain that Dubya knows what he's doing, even when it's apparent to most of the public that he not only doesn't have a plan to fix the problem, he doesn't get that there is a problem. You're inflexible; you're stuck; you're a Republican.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
MARCH 22, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
YES, HE DID WANT WAR
In a rare press conference yesterday George W. Bush asserted that he didn't want war with Iraq, but the evidence is overwhelming that he did want war and was just looking for an excuse. We know about the infamous PNAC plan, of course, for the "new American century." The centerpiece of PNAC's plan was control of Middle Eastern oil. We know from administration insiders such as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill that the administration had plans to attack Iraq even before 9/11. This article is at thinkprogress.org:
Bush appears to be the only person left who believes his own myth that he went to war with Iraq as a last resort. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary:
British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. [Guardian, 2/3/06]
WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU BREAK THE RULES
George W. Bush has made the world infinitely more dangerous. His doctrine of "preemptive war" is among the most dangerous ideas to come out of any U.S. administration. By stating that the U.S. has the right to preemptively attack any perceived enemy, Bush has opened the door for other countries to adopt a similar policy. North Korea is stating that it has the right to preemptively attack the United States. This article by Jae-Soon Chang is at www.commondreams.org:
North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.
"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."
INTO THE TWILIGHT ZONE
Sometimes I expect Rod Serling to pop up on my TV screen, cigarette in hand, and talk about how we've entered the Twilight Zone. It has felt that way since the Supreme Court handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. Things have gotten more surreal ever since. Bush, who didn't even win the popular vote, governed as though he had a massive mandate and the Democrats in Congress went along. We got the attacks on 9/11 that should have been prevented, but weren't, and Bush wasn't held accountable. Instead, we got the "rally round the leader" syndrome and Bush used the attacks to justify everything in his onerous agenda, including massive tax cuts for his rich friends. It makes you wonder if we really have moved into the Twilight Zone. This article by Paul Craig Roberts is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Readers tell me that Americans don't live here any more. They ask what responsible American citizenry would put up with the trashing of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, with wars based on deception, and with pathological liars in control of their government? One reader recently wrote that he believes that "no element of the U.S. government has been left untainted" by the lies and manipulations that have driven away accountability. So-called leaders, he wrote, "talk a great story of American pride and patriotism," but in their hands patriotism is merely a device for "cynical manipulation and fraud."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
YES, HE DID WANT WAR
In a rare press conference yesterday George W. Bush asserted that he didn't want war with Iraq, but the evidence is overwhelming that he did want war and was just looking for an excuse. We know about the infamous PNAC plan, of course, for the "new American century." The centerpiece of PNAC's plan was control of Middle Eastern oil. We know from administration insiders such as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill that the administration had plans to attack Iraq even before 9/11. This article is at thinkprogress.org:
Bush appears to be the only person left who believes his own myth that he went to war with Iraq as a last resort. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary:
British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. [Guardian, 2/3/06]
WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU BREAK THE RULES
George W. Bush has made the world infinitely more dangerous. His doctrine of "preemptive war" is among the most dangerous ideas to come out of any U.S. administration. By stating that the U.S. has the right to preemptively attack any perceived enemy, Bush has opened the door for other countries to adopt a similar policy. North Korea is stating that it has the right to preemptively attack the United States. This article by Jae-Soon Chang is at www.commondreams.org:
North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.
"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."
INTO THE TWILIGHT ZONE
Sometimes I expect Rod Serling to pop up on my TV screen, cigarette in hand, and talk about how we've entered the Twilight Zone. It has felt that way since the Supreme Court handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. Things have gotten more surreal ever since. Bush, who didn't even win the popular vote, governed as though he had a massive mandate and the Democrats in Congress went along. We got the attacks on 9/11 that should have been prevented, but weren't, and Bush wasn't held accountable. Instead, we got the "rally round the leader" syndrome and Bush used the attacks to justify everything in his onerous agenda, including massive tax cuts for his rich friends. It makes you wonder if we really have moved into the Twilight Zone. This article by Paul Craig Roberts is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Readers tell me that Americans don't live here any more. They ask what responsible American citizenry would put up with the trashing of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, with wars based on deception, and with pathological liars in control of their government? One reader recently wrote that he believes that "no element of the U.S. government has been left untainted" by the lies and manipulations that have driven away accountability. So-called leaders, he wrote, "talk a great story of American pride and patriotism," but in their hands patriotism is merely a device for "cynical manipulation and fraud."
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
MARCH 21, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MORIBUND U.S. MEDIA
One of my favorite movies is "All the President's Men" about the investigation by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein into the unfolding Watergate scandal. That investigation ultimately led to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, and it was one of the highest points in American journalism. Things have changed since 1974. The press, mostly corporate owned and controlled, has become largely a stenographer for the government, not the watchdog it once was. We have seen a glaring example in the way the press has covered the Iraq war. This story by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
In this climate of fear and fawning, U.S. journalists knew intuitively that to question Bush’s leadership could be fatal to one’s career. News organizations and individual journalists concluded that their corporate and personal financial interests were best served by waving the Red-White-and-Blue, instead of raising red warning flags.
As the Iraq War hysteria built in 2002, the New York Times published false stories about Iraq building a nuclear bomb. The Washington Post’s opinion pages virtually excluded skeptical commentary and its own editorials cited Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction as a fact, not a point in dispute.
The U.S. news media’s “group think” reached its zenith on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell detailed the supposed U.S. evidence of Iraqi WMD before the United Nations Security Council.
LOOKING AT THE REAL HISTORY
Almost all of us got a sanitized version of U.S. history when we went to school. We get that sanitized version enhanced by the major media. You rarely see an honest depiction of slavery, or of genocide against Native Americans, or the subjugation of women, or the beating down of the working class. We're told we're the home of the brave and the land of the free, but we don't get a look at the American foreign policies that have propped up vicious dictators or exploited the natural resources of other nations. This article by Howard Zinn is at www.commondreams.org:
What is the idea of our moral superiority based on? Surely not on our behavior toward people in other parts of the world. Is it based on how well people in the United States live? The World Health Organization in 2000 ranked countries in terms of overall health performance, and the United States was thirty-seventh on the list, though it spends more per capita for health care than any other nation. One of five children in this, the richest country in the world, is born in poverty. There are more than forty countries that have better records on infant mortality. Cuba does better. And there is a sure sign of sickness in society when we lead the world in the number of people in prison—more than two million.
A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world. It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars and killers who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join the rest of the human race in the common cause of peace and justice.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MORIBUND U.S. MEDIA
One of my favorite movies is "All the President's Men" about the investigation by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein into the unfolding Watergate scandal. That investigation ultimately led to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, and it was one of the highest points in American journalism. Things have changed since 1974. The press, mostly corporate owned and controlled, has become largely a stenographer for the government, not the watchdog it once was. We have seen a glaring example in the way the press has covered the Iraq war. This story by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
In this climate of fear and fawning, U.S. journalists knew intuitively that to question Bush’s leadership could be fatal to one’s career. News organizations and individual journalists concluded that their corporate and personal financial interests were best served by waving the Red-White-and-Blue, instead of raising red warning flags.
As the Iraq War hysteria built in 2002, the New York Times published false stories about Iraq building a nuclear bomb. The Washington Post’s opinion pages virtually excluded skeptical commentary and its own editorials cited Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction as a fact, not a point in dispute.
The U.S. news media’s “group think” reached its zenith on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell detailed the supposed U.S. evidence of Iraqi WMD before the United Nations Security Council.
LOOKING AT THE REAL HISTORY
Almost all of us got a sanitized version of U.S. history when we went to school. We get that sanitized version enhanced by the major media. You rarely see an honest depiction of slavery, or of genocide against Native Americans, or the subjugation of women, or the beating down of the working class. We're told we're the home of the brave and the land of the free, but we don't get a look at the American foreign policies that have propped up vicious dictators or exploited the natural resources of other nations. This article by Howard Zinn is at www.commondreams.org:
What is the idea of our moral superiority based on? Surely not on our behavior toward people in other parts of the world. Is it based on how well people in the United States live? The World Health Organization in 2000 ranked countries in terms of overall health performance, and the United States was thirty-seventh on the list, though it spends more per capita for health care than any other nation. One of five children in this, the richest country in the world, is born in poverty. There are more than forty countries that have better records on infant mortality. Cuba does better. And there is a sure sign of sickness in society when we lead the world in the number of people in prison—more than two million.
A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world. It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars and killers who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join the rest of the human race in the common cause of peace and justice.
Monday, March 20, 2006
MARCH 20, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE REAL AMERICA HATERS
If you disagree or criticize George W. Bush, the right-wingers in this country like to say you "hate America." But I would say it is they who hate America. This country stands for liberty and equality, and those concepts are anathema to right-wingers. They demonize the poor, they demonize the working class, they demonize gays and lesbians, they demonize anyone whose religious beliefs don't fit into a nice little cubbyhole, they demonize women, and they demonize minorities. "America" to them is mostly rich white males, who on the surface profess a love of Christianity, while they live their lives in total opposition to the principles of Christianity. In this column Jon Carroll, whose daughter is a lesbian, talks about the America haters. The column is at www.sfgate.com:
The people who hate America are the members of American Family Association and its ideological fellow travelers. They're the ones who do not believe that all people are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They're the ones who believe that this country was founded on hate and fear; they're the ones who want the hate and fear to continue.
LIKE OLD EUROPE
In the runup to the Iraq war Donald Rumsfeld once referred to European critics of this misadventure as "old Europe." "New Europe" was those few countries in the Coalition of the Willing that jumped on board with the United States. Isn't it ironic, then, that our economic system is becoming like "old Europe"? We see an increasing concentration of wealth in just a few hands. How long until we have castles with drawbridges and moats? This story by Donald A. Love is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
A December 2005 research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University reported that between 1972 and 2001, the income of people in the top 1 percent grew by 87 percent. For people at the very top - the 99.99th percentile - the income gain was 181 percent. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent grew by only 3 percent. What's more, an analysis of income-tax data by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1 percent of households own almost twice as much of the nation's corporate wealth as they did 15 years ago.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE REAL AMERICA HATERS
If you disagree or criticize George W. Bush, the right-wingers in this country like to say you "hate America." But I would say it is they who hate America. This country stands for liberty and equality, and those concepts are anathema to right-wingers. They demonize the poor, they demonize the working class, they demonize gays and lesbians, they demonize anyone whose religious beliefs don't fit into a nice little cubbyhole, they demonize women, and they demonize minorities. "America" to them is mostly rich white males, who on the surface profess a love of Christianity, while they live their lives in total opposition to the principles of Christianity. In this column Jon Carroll, whose daughter is a lesbian, talks about the America haters. The column is at www.sfgate.com:
The people who hate America are the members of American Family Association and its ideological fellow travelers. They're the ones who do not believe that all people are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They're the ones who believe that this country was founded on hate and fear; they're the ones who want the hate and fear to continue.
LIKE OLD EUROPE
In the runup to the Iraq war Donald Rumsfeld once referred to European critics of this misadventure as "old Europe." "New Europe" was those few countries in the Coalition of the Willing that jumped on board with the United States. Isn't it ironic, then, that our economic system is becoming like "old Europe"? We see an increasing concentration of wealth in just a few hands. How long until we have castles with drawbridges and moats? This story by Donald A. Love is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
A December 2005 research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University reported that between 1972 and 2001, the income of people in the top 1 percent grew by 87 percent. For people at the very top - the 99.99th percentile - the income gain was 181 percent. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent grew by only 3 percent. What's more, an analysis of income-tax data by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1 percent of households own almost twice as much of the nation's corporate wealth as they did 15 years ago.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
MARCH 19, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Lord knows there has been plenty of spin put on the Iraq war. We heard about Bush's doctrine of "preemptive war" after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. We heard a speech about the "axis of evil." We heard the build-up to the Iraq war that claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we were just one mushroom cloud from destruction. After the invasion and no weapons of mass destruction the spin changed to how the Iraqi people were better off and that "freedom was on the march" in Iraq and would even spread throughout the Middle East. It hasn't worked out that way. This article by Warren P. Strobel and Hannah Allam is at www.makethemaccountable.com:
Instead, said officials and analysts in the United States, Arab countries, Israel and Europe, the invasion has produced a vortex of unintended consequences.
Militancy is on the rise. Terrorists are using Iraq as a training base and potential launch pad for attacks elsewhere, according to U.S. officials and documents. Democratic reform remains largely stymied…
NO CHOCOLATES, NO FLOWERS
There was once a right-wing e-mail circulating that claimed that things in Iraq were so much better since the U.S. occupation. According to the memo, girls were getting educated, infrastructure was being built and improved, and the health care system was never better. Now three years after the launch of the war the truth is that almost everything is worse. Riverbend, a blogger I really respect, lives in Baghdad and writes about the way Iraq is now. This article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
I don't think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I'm so tired of it all- we're all tired.
Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it's on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Lord knows there has been plenty of spin put on the Iraq war. We heard about Bush's doctrine of "preemptive war" after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. We heard a speech about the "axis of evil." We heard the build-up to the Iraq war that claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we were just one mushroom cloud from destruction. After the invasion and no weapons of mass destruction the spin changed to how the Iraqi people were better off and that "freedom was on the march" in Iraq and would even spread throughout the Middle East. It hasn't worked out that way. This article by Warren P. Strobel and Hannah Allam is at www.makethemaccountable.com:
Instead, said officials and analysts in the United States, Arab countries, Israel and Europe, the invasion has produced a vortex of unintended consequences.
Militancy is on the rise. Terrorists are using Iraq as a training base and potential launch pad for attacks elsewhere, according to U.S. officials and documents. Democratic reform remains largely stymied…
NO CHOCOLATES, NO FLOWERS
There was once a right-wing e-mail circulating that claimed that things in Iraq were so much better since the U.S. occupation. According to the memo, girls were getting educated, infrastructure was being built and improved, and the health care system was never better. Now three years after the launch of the war the truth is that almost everything is worse. Riverbend, a blogger I really respect, lives in Baghdad and writes about the way Iraq is now. This article is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:
I don't think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I'm so tired of it all- we're all tired.
Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it's on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
March 18, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE IRAQ WAR: DISASTER ON MANY FRONTS
As we see the United States military bogged down in Iraq, facing a bloody civil war, we have to consider all the implications of this terrible war. The most obvious example is all the unnecessary death and carnage. The violence of the war has spun off violence in the form of torture. The war has ruptured unity here at home because the Bush administration has deliberately branded dissenters as friends of terrorists and other such bilge. The United States has probably been guilty of war crimes by using white phosphorus. We have been using depleted uranium in Iraq for years. Depleted uranium remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Our credibility has been devastated. The whole war was built on lies. We are bleeding profusely from the financial impact of this war. This article by Bob Burnett looks at the far-reaching effects of this war. The article is linked at www.commondreams.org:
The US is the strongest military power in the world; we spend more on defense than all of our competitors combined. Nonetheless, the Iraqi venture has pointed out glaring weaknesses in our defense posture. The entire world has seen the Bush Administration override sound military advice-the number of troops necessary for an effective occupation-for political purposes. They have seen America make a series of bad decisions indicating that while we may be strong, we are not very smart.
As powerful as the US is, it does not have unlimited resources. Our costly commitment to Iraq has had three deleterious side affects: the first is that it has impaired our ability to fight another, parallel, ground campaign. Faced with the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power, the US has only a limited range of options. Because it cannot threaten Iran with an invasion aimed at eliminating its nuclear enrichment capability, the US can bomb Iran, fall back on diplomacy, or simply hope for the best.
The second negative side-affect has been to weaken our commitment to domestic security. After 9/11, there were a number of reports-most notably that of the 9/11 commission-that suggested common-sense steps that needed to be taken to reduce the probability of another major terrorist attack. Most of these steps have not been taken-scanning all incoming cargo containers being a prime example. Part of this failure can be attributed to the incompetence of the Bush Administration, but a major portion is due to the fact that money that should be allocated to nuts-and-bolts homeland security is being spent in Iraq.
WE HAVE TO REJECT RIGHT-WING ECONOMICS
We should have learned from history. The conservative administration of Herbert Hoover and its economic policies helped contribute to the Great Depression. It took an activist administration headed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a war economy to finally escape the Depression. The programs enacted by FDR and subsequently by Harry Truman set the stage for the most prosperous time in U.S. history. Then along came the right-wingers with their claptrap about "punishing the achievers," the very rich, and how a "welfare state" was bringing the imminent end of the country. We got tax cuts for the rich during the Reagan years and we got massive deficits. Bill Clinton, a conservative Democrat, restored some sense of fiscal sanity, which was promptly smashed by the extremist policies of George W. Bush. Now our economic security is fragile. The standard of living for most of us is melting like ice on a summer day. Holly Sklar writes about it in this column at www.commondreams.org:
Households have propped themselves up in the face of falling real wages by maxing out work hours, credit cards and home equity loans. This is not a sustainable course. The low road is like a "shortcut" that leads to a cliff.
We will not prosper in the 21st century global economy by relying on 1920s corporate greed, 1950s tax revenues, downwardly mobile wages and global-warming energy policies. We will not prosper relying on disinvestment in place of reinvestment. We can't succeed that way any more than farmers can "compete" by eating their seed corn.
As Business Week put it in a special issue on China and India, "China's competitive edge is shifting from low-cost workers to state-of-the-art manufacturing. India is creating world-class innovation hubs, and its companies are far better performers than China's."
The United States will not succeed by shifting increasingly from state-of-the art manufacturing and world-class innovation hubs to low-cost workers.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE IRAQ WAR: DISASTER ON MANY FRONTS
As we see the United States military bogged down in Iraq, facing a bloody civil war, we have to consider all the implications of this terrible war. The most obvious example is all the unnecessary death and carnage. The violence of the war has spun off violence in the form of torture. The war has ruptured unity here at home because the Bush administration has deliberately branded dissenters as friends of terrorists and other such bilge. The United States has probably been guilty of war crimes by using white phosphorus. We have been using depleted uranium in Iraq for years. Depleted uranium remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Our credibility has been devastated. The whole war was built on lies. We are bleeding profusely from the financial impact of this war. This article by Bob Burnett looks at the far-reaching effects of this war. The article is linked at www.commondreams.org:
The US is the strongest military power in the world; we spend more on defense than all of our competitors combined. Nonetheless, the Iraqi venture has pointed out glaring weaknesses in our defense posture. The entire world has seen the Bush Administration override sound military advice-the number of troops necessary for an effective occupation-for political purposes. They have seen America make a series of bad decisions indicating that while we may be strong, we are not very smart.
As powerful as the US is, it does not have unlimited resources. Our costly commitment to Iraq has had three deleterious side affects: the first is that it has impaired our ability to fight another, parallel, ground campaign. Faced with the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power, the US has only a limited range of options. Because it cannot threaten Iran with an invasion aimed at eliminating its nuclear enrichment capability, the US can bomb Iran, fall back on diplomacy, or simply hope for the best.
The second negative side-affect has been to weaken our commitment to domestic security. After 9/11, there were a number of reports-most notably that of the 9/11 commission-that suggested common-sense steps that needed to be taken to reduce the probability of another major terrorist attack. Most of these steps have not been taken-scanning all incoming cargo containers being a prime example. Part of this failure can be attributed to the incompetence of the Bush Administration, but a major portion is due to the fact that money that should be allocated to nuts-and-bolts homeland security is being spent in Iraq.
WE HAVE TO REJECT RIGHT-WING ECONOMICS
We should have learned from history. The conservative administration of Herbert Hoover and its economic policies helped contribute to the Great Depression. It took an activist administration headed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a war economy to finally escape the Depression. The programs enacted by FDR and subsequently by Harry Truman set the stage for the most prosperous time in U.S. history. Then along came the right-wingers with their claptrap about "punishing the achievers," the very rich, and how a "welfare state" was bringing the imminent end of the country. We got tax cuts for the rich during the Reagan years and we got massive deficits. Bill Clinton, a conservative Democrat, restored some sense of fiscal sanity, which was promptly smashed by the extremist policies of George W. Bush. Now our economic security is fragile. The standard of living for most of us is melting like ice on a summer day. Holly Sklar writes about it in this column at www.commondreams.org:
Households have propped themselves up in the face of falling real wages by maxing out work hours, credit cards and home equity loans. This is not a sustainable course. The low road is like a "shortcut" that leads to a cliff.
We will not prosper in the 21st century global economy by relying on 1920s corporate greed, 1950s tax revenues, downwardly mobile wages and global-warming energy policies. We will not prosper relying on disinvestment in place of reinvestment. We can't succeed that way any more than farmers can "compete" by eating their seed corn.
As Business Week put it in a special issue on China and India, "China's competitive edge is shifting from low-cost workers to state-of-the-art manufacturing. India is creating world-class innovation hubs, and its companies are far better performers than China's."
The United States will not succeed by shifting increasingly from state-of-the art manufacturing and world-class innovation hubs to low-cost workers.
Friday, March 17, 2006
March 17, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PARTY FIRST, COUNTRY SECOND
When I learned about the Downing Street Memos, which showed that the Bush administration was fixing intelligence to justify a war against Iraq, I contacted my local Congressman George "Rubber Stamp" Radanovich. I told the Congressman it was time to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney. I asked him then if he was loyal to his party or to the country. I never got a response, which was a kind of response in itself. "Rubber Stamp," like all the Republicans in Congress, places loyalty to Bush above loyalty to the country. A Congress with any dedication to the Constitution and any love of country would have drawn up Articles of Impeachment long ago. This article by Steve Chapman is at www.chicagotribune.com:
This is an absurd parody of the checks and balances our system is supposed to provide. If the framers of the Constitution had thought a single branch of government could police itself, they would not have created three branches.
As James Madison wrote, "The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others ... Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
The idea was that each branch would jealously guard its powers against the others. But in this case, Congress passed a law, the president ignored it, and Congress applauded him for doing so. Stalin's Politburo could not have been more compliant.
What the framers didn't anticipate was the rise of political parties, allegiances to which now override every other consideration. This episode makes clear that the best government is divided government--where the party that occupies the White House does not control Congress. Only then can we rely on lawmakers to provide a meaningful check on presidential power. With the GOP dominant at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the president can treat Congress as an obsolete irrelevancy.
THE LAND OF COTTON
There are some science fiction novels that use "alternative history" to build a plot around the idea that the Confederacy won the U.S. Civil War. As you see the brazen assault by right-wingers on the Constitution these days, you have to wonder if the South did, in fact, rise again. We see assaults on affirmative action, on voting rights, on a woman's right to choose, on the separation of church and state, and the blatant abuse of civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. This isn't acceptable. All the rights we enjoy came at a high cost, and we owe it to our forebears, ourselves, and future generations to preserve and advance those rights. This article by Margaret Kimberly is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The 21st century Confederates are succeeding because no one is willing to stand in their way. The Argus Leader, the largest newspaper in South Dakota, announced it will not take an editorial position on the new law. Spineless editorial page editor Chuck Baldwin made this amazing comment about his decision to gag himself. "Rather than change anyone's mind, we would create another controversy."
Translation: The powerful have spoken, and I'm not bucking the system.
The Civil War of the 1860s came about when the South was not content to maintain slavery but insisted on expanding its reach into new territories and forcing nonslave-holding states to be complicit in their crimes through the Fugitive Slave Law. A South Dakota-instigated rejection of Roe will be felt in states that would never consider banning abortion.
The boldness of the right wing isn't restricted to any single issue. In South Dakota civil rights for women have been eliminated. In Georgia voting rights have been severely curtained.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PARTY FIRST, COUNTRY SECOND
When I learned about the Downing Street Memos, which showed that the Bush administration was fixing intelligence to justify a war against Iraq, I contacted my local Congressman George "Rubber Stamp" Radanovich. I told the Congressman it was time to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney. I asked him then if he was loyal to his party or to the country. I never got a response, which was a kind of response in itself. "Rubber Stamp," like all the Republicans in Congress, places loyalty to Bush above loyalty to the country. A Congress with any dedication to the Constitution and any love of country would have drawn up Articles of Impeachment long ago. This article by Steve Chapman is at www.chicagotribune.com:
This is an absurd parody of the checks and balances our system is supposed to provide. If the framers of the Constitution had thought a single branch of government could police itself, they would not have created three branches.
As James Madison wrote, "The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others ... Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
The idea was that each branch would jealously guard its powers against the others. But in this case, Congress passed a law, the president ignored it, and Congress applauded him for doing so. Stalin's Politburo could not have been more compliant.
What the framers didn't anticipate was the rise of political parties, allegiances to which now override every other consideration. This episode makes clear that the best government is divided government--where the party that occupies the White House does not control Congress. Only then can we rely on lawmakers to provide a meaningful check on presidential power. With the GOP dominant at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the president can treat Congress as an obsolete irrelevancy.
THE LAND OF COTTON
There are some science fiction novels that use "alternative history" to build a plot around the idea that the Confederacy won the U.S. Civil War. As you see the brazen assault by right-wingers on the Constitution these days, you have to wonder if the South did, in fact, rise again. We see assaults on affirmative action, on voting rights, on a woman's right to choose, on the separation of church and state, and the blatant abuse of civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. This isn't acceptable. All the rights we enjoy came at a high cost, and we owe it to our forebears, ourselves, and future generations to preserve and advance those rights. This article by Margaret Kimberly is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The 21st century Confederates are succeeding because no one is willing to stand in their way. The Argus Leader, the largest newspaper in South Dakota, announced it will not take an editorial position on the new law. Spineless editorial page editor Chuck Baldwin made this amazing comment about his decision to gag himself. "Rather than change anyone's mind, we would create another controversy."
Translation: The powerful have spoken, and I'm not bucking the system.
The Civil War of the 1860s came about when the South was not content to maintain slavery but insisted on expanding its reach into new territories and forcing nonslave-holding states to be complicit in their crimes through the Fugitive Slave Law. A South Dakota-instigated rejection of Roe will be felt in states that would never consider banning abortion.
The boldness of the right wing isn't restricted to any single issue. In South Dakota civil rights for women have been eliminated. In Georgia voting rights have been severely curtained.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
March 16, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RANKS OF THE UNEMPLOYED
Yesterday I joined the ranks of the unemployed for the second time since George W. Bush stole the presidency. I was previously downsized on March 15, 2002, with no warning. I was called into the office and told my job was over that day. Yesterday I was called into the office and told my job was over as of yesterday.
In both cases I followed the rules. I rarely missed work, I worked hard, and I was always committed to doing a good job. The employer I left yesterday was never satisfied. They always push "numbers," as though you're working on an assembly line, although you're working with reports that can be quite complex.
I could see the bullet coming a little better this time than I did four years ago. Business has dropped precipitously the past couple of months. Technology was more of a culprit in the previous job. The new technology, in management's view, made it possible to do the same work with half the staff.
I don't think it's just coincidence that the times are hard for me and for other Americans since Bush took office. The crackpot economics of the Far Right always lead to catastrophe. Look at any major policy issue, whether it's war and peace, civil liberties, the economy, disaster relief, or the environment, and it's all a disaster under Bush. This gang is so selfish, so greedy, and so ideologically blind they're leading the country right over a cliff.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RANKS OF THE UNEMPLOYED
Yesterday I joined the ranks of the unemployed for the second time since George W. Bush stole the presidency. I was previously downsized on March 15, 2002, with no warning. I was called into the office and told my job was over that day. Yesterday I was called into the office and told my job was over as of yesterday.
In both cases I followed the rules. I rarely missed work, I worked hard, and I was always committed to doing a good job. The employer I left yesterday was never satisfied. They always push "numbers," as though you're working on an assembly line, although you're working with reports that can be quite complex.
I could see the bullet coming a little better this time than I did four years ago. Business has dropped precipitously the past couple of months. Technology was more of a culprit in the previous job. The new technology, in management's view, made it possible to do the same work with half the staff.
I don't think it's just coincidence that the times are hard for me and for other Americans since Bush took office. The crackpot economics of the Far Right always lead to catastrophe. Look at any major policy issue, whether it's war and peace, civil liberties, the economy, disaster relief, or the environment, and it's all a disaster under Bush. This gang is so selfish, so greedy, and so ideologically blind they're leading the country right over a cliff.
Monday, March 13, 2006
March 13, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOXIC MARKET FUNDAMENTALISM
Some right-wingers breathily whisper "free market" the way some people would utter the name of God. Free market fundamentalism has largely dominated U.S. economic policy since the Reagan administration. The results aren't pretty. This article by Fred Block is at www.commondreams.org:
Market Fundamentalism has ruled the country for close to twenty-five years. It has produced weak economic performance, corporate crime waves, government corruption and a coarsening of the culture. But the amazing thing is that efforts to hold the Market Fundamentalists accountable have gained so little traction. Perhaps the best explanation for this has been offered by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. In "The Lost Art of Democratic Narrative," published by The New Republic in March 2005, Reich argues that differences over economic policy have been fought out in American politics over the past century by appropriating four specific story lines--the rot at the top, the mob at the gates, the triumphant individual and the benevolent community. The party that tells these stories most persuasively wins, he observes, and in recent years the prize has gone to the Republicans.
BUSH HAS THINGS TO HIDE
From the beginning of his stolen presidency George W. Bush has been intent on secrecy. Information that should be available to the public is classified. Even the records of previous administrations have been closeted away by Bush. You suspect he wants to hide the activity of his father, who was both vice president under Ronald Reagan and later president. Bush would claim that national security is the justification for the secrecy, but it appears more and more it's because Bush has many things to hide. This article by Tom Teepen is at www.commondreams.org:
As it becomes more beleaguered, with its programs and policies collapsing around it like plague victims - the needless Iraq invasion, Social Security privatization, the bungled response to Katrina, port security, domestic spying and more - the Bush administration is digging ever deeper holes of secrecy in which to hide.
This administration from its start has been battened down, secretive, uncommunicative and even sneaky, and as it has entrenched itself in power, that instinct to keep the public from nosing around in what after all is the public's own business has deepened and hardened.
In recent months we have learned that the CIA has established secret prisons abroad, that foreign law enforcement agencies are investigating U.S. kidnappings in their countries, that the administration has been reclassifying previously declassified documents, that thousands of completed criminal cases are being kept secret and that the White House is threatening journalists who report leaks with imprisonment under the 1917 Espionage Act.
GOVERNMENT'S FUDGED STATISTICS
On the news you get an array of government reports about the economy. You hear about the Gross Domestic Product, unemployment, inflation, the Consumer Price Index, the balance of trade deficit, and so on. Many people probably have their eyes glaze over. But we should be getting honest figures from the government, and we're not. Unemployment, for instance, is far higher than the official figure released by the government. This story by Bill Fleckenstein is at www.opednews.com:
Williams starts by discussing the headline economic data: "Real unemployment right now -- figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression -- is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction." (By "real," he means calculating the data the way they used to be calculated, not as inflation-adjusted.)
He then explains how the employment data are compiled, noting that 5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics. One called U-3 is the official one. The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as running around 8.4%. As he explains, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.
DON'T TRUST MC CAIN
John McCain, Senator from Arizona, has acquired the reputation as a maverick, as the guy who doesn't toe the Republican party line 100% of the time. He's emerging as the Great White Hope for the Republicans in 2008. But McCain in many ways is just as reactionary as George W. Bush, especially on foreign policy issues. And he can't be trusted on economic issues either, despite some professed concern for the middle class and the poor once upon a time. This column by Paul Krugman is linked at www.topplebush.com:
The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.
What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOXIC MARKET FUNDAMENTALISM
Some right-wingers breathily whisper "free market" the way some people would utter the name of God. Free market fundamentalism has largely dominated U.S. economic policy since the Reagan administration. The results aren't pretty. This article by Fred Block is at www.commondreams.org:
Market Fundamentalism has ruled the country for close to twenty-five years. It has produced weak economic performance, corporate crime waves, government corruption and a coarsening of the culture. But the amazing thing is that efforts to hold the Market Fundamentalists accountable have gained so little traction. Perhaps the best explanation for this has been offered by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. In "The Lost Art of Democratic Narrative," published by The New Republic in March 2005, Reich argues that differences over economic policy have been fought out in American politics over the past century by appropriating four specific story lines--the rot at the top, the mob at the gates, the triumphant individual and the benevolent community. The party that tells these stories most persuasively wins, he observes, and in recent years the prize has gone to the Republicans.
BUSH HAS THINGS TO HIDE
From the beginning of his stolen presidency George W. Bush has been intent on secrecy. Information that should be available to the public is classified. Even the records of previous administrations have been closeted away by Bush. You suspect he wants to hide the activity of his father, who was both vice president under Ronald Reagan and later president. Bush would claim that national security is the justification for the secrecy, but it appears more and more it's because Bush has many things to hide. This article by Tom Teepen is at www.commondreams.org:
As it becomes more beleaguered, with its programs and policies collapsing around it like plague victims - the needless Iraq invasion, Social Security privatization, the bungled response to Katrina, port security, domestic spying and more - the Bush administration is digging ever deeper holes of secrecy in which to hide.
This administration from its start has been battened down, secretive, uncommunicative and even sneaky, and as it has entrenched itself in power, that instinct to keep the public from nosing around in what after all is the public's own business has deepened and hardened.
In recent months we have learned that the CIA has established secret prisons abroad, that foreign law enforcement agencies are investigating U.S. kidnappings in their countries, that the administration has been reclassifying previously declassified documents, that thousands of completed criminal cases are being kept secret and that the White House is threatening journalists who report leaks with imprisonment under the 1917 Espionage Act.
GOVERNMENT'S FUDGED STATISTICS
On the news you get an array of government reports about the economy. You hear about the Gross Domestic Product, unemployment, inflation, the Consumer Price Index, the balance of trade deficit, and so on. Many people probably have their eyes glaze over. But we should be getting honest figures from the government, and we're not. Unemployment, for instance, is far higher than the official figure released by the government. This story by Bill Fleckenstein is at www.opednews.com:
Williams starts by discussing the headline economic data: "Real unemployment right now -- figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression -- is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction." (By "real," he means calculating the data the way they used to be calculated, not as inflation-adjusted.)
He then explains how the employment data are compiled, noting that 5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics. One called U-3 is the official one. The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as running around 8.4%. As he explains, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.
DON'T TRUST MC CAIN
John McCain, Senator from Arizona, has acquired the reputation as a maverick, as the guy who doesn't toe the Republican party line 100% of the time. He's emerging as the Great White Hope for the Republicans in 2008. But McCain in many ways is just as reactionary as George W. Bush, especially on foreign policy issues. And he can't be trusted on economic issues either, despite some professed concern for the middle class and the poor once upon a time. This column by Paul Krugman is linked at www.topplebush.com:
The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.
What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
March 12, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DATA MINING DOESN'T STOP TERRORISM
Among other things, George W. Bush is a bit of a peeping Tom. His administration has been obsessed with a few things: secrecy and gathering as much information on each of us that it can get, even when that means violating the Bill of Rights. First, there was something called Total Information Awareness that was shut down when there was a public outcry. But Bush and company simply continued the program under another name. Some right-wingers have said they have "nothing to hide" and don't mind being spied upon. I do mind. But even if you wanted to use data mining to stop terrorism, it doesn't work. An effective program generates so many leads it's physically impossible to check them all them all out. This article by Bruce Schneier is at www.wired.com:
Let's look at some numbers. We'll be optimistic -- we'll assume the system has a one in 100 false-positive rate (99 percent accurate), and a one in 1,000 false-negative rate (99.9 percent accurate). Assume 1 trillion possible indicators to sift through: that's about 10 events -- e-mails, phone calls, purchases, web destinations, whatever -- per person in the United States per day. Also assume that 10 of them are actually terrorists plotting.
This unrealistically accurate system will generate 1 billion false alarms for every real terrorist plot it uncovers. Every day of every year, the police will have to investigate 27 million potential plots in order to find the one real terrorist plot per month. Raise that false-positive accuracy to an absurd 99.9999 percent and you're still chasing 2,750 false alarms per day -- but that will inevitably raise your false negatives, and you're going to miss some of those 10 real plots.
SOME ARAB CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVILIZATION
It is very easy to be a bigot and think all Arabs are terrorists and fanatics, but that perception is entirely wrong. George W. Bush has consistently played the fear card since 9/11, but he got burned on the Dubai ports deal because of the anti-Arab sentiment he helped to create. It's helpful to see some of the great contributions Arabs have made to civilization. You can even think Arabs in a way for that morning cup of coffee. This story by Paul Vallely is at news.independent.co.uk:
The story goes that an Arab named Khalid was tending his goats in the Kaffa region of southern Ethiopia, when he noticed his animals became livelier after eating a certain berry. He boiled the berries to make the first coffee. Certainly the first record of the drink is of beans exported from Ethiopia to Yemen where Sufis drank it to stay awake all night to pray on special occasions. By the late 15th century it had arrived in Mecca and Turkey from where it made its way to Venice in 1645. It was brought to England in 1650 by a Turk named Pasqua Rosee who opened the first coffee house in Lombard Street in the City of London. The Arabic qahwa became the Turkish kahve then the Italian caffé and then English coffee.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DATA MINING DOESN'T STOP TERRORISM
Among other things, George W. Bush is a bit of a peeping Tom. His administration has been obsessed with a few things: secrecy and gathering as much information on each of us that it can get, even when that means violating the Bill of Rights. First, there was something called Total Information Awareness that was shut down when there was a public outcry. But Bush and company simply continued the program under another name. Some right-wingers have said they have "nothing to hide" and don't mind being spied upon. I do mind. But even if you wanted to use data mining to stop terrorism, it doesn't work. An effective program generates so many leads it's physically impossible to check them all them all out. This article by Bruce Schneier is at www.wired.com:
Let's look at some numbers. We'll be optimistic -- we'll assume the system has a one in 100 false-positive rate (99 percent accurate), and a one in 1,000 false-negative rate (99.9 percent accurate). Assume 1 trillion possible indicators to sift through: that's about 10 events -- e-mails, phone calls, purchases, web destinations, whatever -- per person in the United States per day. Also assume that 10 of them are actually terrorists plotting.
This unrealistically accurate system will generate 1 billion false alarms for every real terrorist plot it uncovers. Every day of every year, the police will have to investigate 27 million potential plots in order to find the one real terrorist plot per month. Raise that false-positive accuracy to an absurd 99.9999 percent and you're still chasing 2,750 false alarms per day -- but that will inevitably raise your false negatives, and you're going to miss some of those 10 real plots.
SOME ARAB CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVILIZATION
It is very easy to be a bigot and think all Arabs are terrorists and fanatics, but that perception is entirely wrong. George W. Bush has consistently played the fear card since 9/11, but he got burned on the Dubai ports deal because of the anti-Arab sentiment he helped to create. It's helpful to see some of the great contributions Arabs have made to civilization. You can even think Arabs in a way for that morning cup of coffee. This story by Paul Vallely is at news.independent.co.uk:
The story goes that an Arab named Khalid was tending his goats in the Kaffa region of southern Ethiopia, when he noticed his animals became livelier after eating a certain berry. He boiled the berries to make the first coffee. Certainly the first record of the drink is of beans exported from Ethiopia to Yemen where Sufis drank it to stay awake all night to pray on special occasions. By the late 15th century it had arrived in Mecca and Turkey from where it made its way to Venice in 1645. It was brought to England in 1650 by a Turk named Pasqua Rosee who opened the first coffee house in Lombard Street in the City of London. The Arabic qahwa became the Turkish kahve then the Italian caffé and then English coffee.
Friday, March 10, 2006
March 10, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MAKE WAR NO MORE
Isn't it amazing that the people who are loudest in proclaiming their religious convictions are the people most in love with war? George W. Bush has paraded around his supposed Christianity, but Bush is a mass killer. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more civilians in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you've ever lost someone close to you, you appreciate the absolute devastation of grief. It's time we all learn that kind of empathy and move toward ending war. This article by Andrew Greeley is at www.suntimes.com:
Every time I see a picture of an American killed in Iraq, I wince. I think of the agony that the death will cause, shattering, rending, paralyzing pain, and the stress and the strain it will introduce into family relationships. I wonder if the family will ever be free from this suffering.
In most cases, it probably will; mourning will replace grief, more or less. In some families, the trauma will be too much, the guilt and anger and magical thinking will persist and blaming will increase -- purgatory now, self-created purgatory. The rationalization that he (or she) died defending American freedom, given bravely to the privacy-violating TV journalist, sounds hollow and will seem more hollow as the years go on.
A MATTER OF SEMANTICS
A few days ago Fox anchor Brit Hume made a big thing about an Associated Press "clarification" concerning a story saying that George W. Bush was aware the levees in New Orleans would breach. The debate centered on the term "overtopping" versus "breach." Overtopping means water flows over the top of the levee, and on the face of it isn't as severe. But the record shows that Bush knew very well that a breach of the levees was a very real threat. His claim a few days later that "no one could anticipate the breach of the levees" was a lie. This article by Ron Brynaert is at www.rawstory.com:
The White House's own "lessons learned" review of the federal response issued last month compared overtopping to a breach of a levee.
....
In a document it called "Setting the Record Straight," the White House said Bush's Aug. 28 videoconference "was open to the press and the full transcript of this videoconference was released to Congress and the public in the fall of 2005."
However, only the opening portion of the conference, where Bush made brief remarks, was witnessed by a small news media pool. And full transcripts of that and other sessions were not released by either the administration or Congress.
THE TAX CUT MYTH
Back in the early days of the Reagan administration we started hearing about supply side economics and the magical results tax cuts would produce. We were told that tax cuts, mostly to the very affluent, would generate so much investment and other activity that the government would rake in greater revenues and the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. We saw the massive federal deficits that were created during the Reagan administration, and we're seeing the same bleeding now. But people like George W. Bush keep parroting the same old lie. This story by Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:
President Bush, for example, commented in a February 8 speech, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney has claimed, “The tax cuts have translated into higher federal revenues.” Majority Leader Frist wrote that recent experience demonstrates, “when done right, [tax cuts] actually result in more money for government.” The Vice President also has stated, “The evidence is in, it’s time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury.”
In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, recent economic growth and revenue growth have not been particularly strong, and revenues remain lower than had been predicted before the tax cuts were enacted…
Those who claim that tax cuts pay for themselves might argue that 2005’s stronger revenue growth represents the beginning of a new trend, and that the tax cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term. Neither the historical record nor current revenue projections support this argument…
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MAKE WAR NO MORE
Isn't it amazing that the people who are loudest in proclaiming their religious convictions are the people most in love with war? George W. Bush has paraded around his supposed Christianity, but Bush is a mass killer. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more civilians in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you've ever lost someone close to you, you appreciate the absolute devastation of grief. It's time we all learn that kind of empathy and move toward ending war. This article by Andrew Greeley is at www.suntimes.com:
Every time I see a picture of an American killed in Iraq, I wince. I think of the agony that the death will cause, shattering, rending, paralyzing pain, and the stress and the strain it will introduce into family relationships. I wonder if the family will ever be free from this suffering.
In most cases, it probably will; mourning will replace grief, more or less. In some families, the trauma will be too much, the guilt and anger and magical thinking will persist and blaming will increase -- purgatory now, self-created purgatory. The rationalization that he (or she) died defending American freedom, given bravely to the privacy-violating TV journalist, sounds hollow and will seem more hollow as the years go on.
A MATTER OF SEMANTICS
A few days ago Fox anchor Brit Hume made a big thing about an Associated Press "clarification" concerning a story saying that George W. Bush was aware the levees in New Orleans would breach. The debate centered on the term "overtopping" versus "breach." Overtopping means water flows over the top of the levee, and on the face of it isn't as severe. But the record shows that Bush knew very well that a breach of the levees was a very real threat. His claim a few days later that "no one could anticipate the breach of the levees" was a lie. This article by Ron Brynaert is at www.rawstory.com:
The White House's own "lessons learned" review of the federal response issued last month compared overtopping to a breach of a levee.
....
In a document it called "Setting the Record Straight," the White House said Bush's Aug. 28 videoconference "was open to the press and the full transcript of this videoconference was released to Congress and the public in the fall of 2005."
However, only the opening portion of the conference, where Bush made brief remarks, was witnessed by a small news media pool. And full transcripts of that and other sessions were not released by either the administration or Congress.
THE TAX CUT MYTH
Back in the early days of the Reagan administration we started hearing about supply side economics and the magical results tax cuts would produce. We were told that tax cuts, mostly to the very affluent, would generate so much investment and other activity that the government would rake in greater revenues and the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. We saw the massive federal deficits that were created during the Reagan administration, and we're seeing the same bleeding now. But people like George W. Bush keep parroting the same old lie. This story by Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:
President Bush, for example, commented in a February 8 speech, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney has claimed, “The tax cuts have translated into higher federal revenues.” Majority Leader Frist wrote that recent experience demonstrates, “when done right, [tax cuts] actually result in more money for government.” The Vice President also has stated, “The evidence is in, it’s time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury.”
In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, recent economic growth and revenue growth have not been particularly strong, and revenues remain lower than had been predicted before the tax cuts were enacted…
Those who claim that tax cuts pay for themselves might argue that 2005’s stronger revenue growth represents the beginning of a new trend, and that the tax cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term. Neither the historical record nor current revenue projections support this argument…
Thursday, March 09, 2006
March 09, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WHEN WMDs DON'T MATTER, I GUESS
George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and others in this administration made a big point of saying what a threat Saddam Hussein presented. Images of mushroom clouds were invoked. We know now that was all a big fat lie. Bush had no such problem when he made a trip to India and ignored the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Bush's agreement with India may very well set off a nuclear arms race among India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea. Bob Herbert writes about it in this column at www.topplebush.com:
This mad-hatter thinking was on display again last week. President Bush, who used specious claims about a nuclear threat to launch his disastrous war in Iraq, agreed to a deal -- in blatant violation of international accords and several decades of bipartisan U.S. policy -- that would enable India to double or triple its annual production of nuclear weapons.
The president turned his back on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (dismissed, like reality-based thinking, as passé) and moved the world a step closer to an accelerated nuclear arms race in Asia and elsewhere. In the president's empire-based, otherworldly way of thinking, this was a good thing.
HATS OFF TO TIM MCGRAW AND FAITH HILL
I'm a country music fan and I'm often dismayed at the right-wing slant of so many country music personalities. Recently, when I visited Merle Haggard's message board some right-wing troll was having a fit that Hag has a song critical of the war in Iraq. Many country music stars have been on board with George W. Bush, and we know how the Dixie Chicks were excoriated for criticizing Bush. So it's refreshing to see Tim McGraw and Faith Hill telling the truth about Bush's mammoth failure to help Hurricane Katrina victims. This story by Andy McSmith is at www.commondreams.org:
Faith Hill and Tim McGraw -- two stars who usually stay out of politics -- blasted the Hurricane Katrina cleanup effort, with Hill calling the slow progress in Louisiana and Mississippi "embarrassing" and "humiliating."
The country music artists -- who are natives of the storm ravaged states -- were at times close to tears, and clearly angry when the subject of Katrina came up during a news conference today. They had met with reporters in Nashville to promote their upcoming Soul2Soul II Tour, but when asked about the hurricane cleanup, the stars pulled no punches.
BUSH UNSCRIPTED
Image making is a big part of life in the United States. Corporations spend millions of dollars with advertising agencies to churn out commercials or ads that worm their way into the public consciousness. The advertising has a way of redefining itself as reality. Public relations firms are engaged to mount campaigns to either create or redeem reputations. If the campaigns are successful, they become the new reality. The strongest supporters of George W. Bush have largely brought into the image making. When you see Bush unscripted he doesn't fare well. The most recent example is the tape that emerged about Bush's meeting before Hurricane Katrina struck. There was Bush on vacation, not even asking a single question. He was hardly the decisive strong leader the image makers would have us believe. This story by Sidney Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
For the first time, last week, the public has seen the spontaneous Bush behind closed doors, in a leaked videotape that recorded his briefing the day before Hurricane Katrina struck. Teleconferenced in from his Crawford ranch, Texas, Bush listens to disaster officials inform him that the storm will be unprecedented in its severity and consequences. "This is, to put it mildly, the big one," says Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Centre, warns: "This hurricane is much larger than Hurricane Andrew ever was." Bush asks not a single question, says, "We are fully prepared", and departs.
The Katrina videotape is defining for Bush's presidency. It exposes a deaf man spouting talking points. After the hurricane hit, he stayed on vacation, went to a birthday party, strummed a guitar with a country and western singer, and on September 1 said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On his flight back to Washington, four days after landfall, his aides gave him a DVD of television news reports of the hurricane's impact about which he had done nothing to learn on his own.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WHEN WMDs DON'T MATTER, I GUESS
George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and others in this administration made a big point of saying what a threat Saddam Hussein presented. Images of mushroom clouds were invoked. We know now that was all a big fat lie. Bush had no such problem when he made a trip to India and ignored the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Bush's agreement with India may very well set off a nuclear arms race among India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea. Bob Herbert writes about it in this column at www.topplebush.com:
This mad-hatter thinking was on display again last week. President Bush, who used specious claims about a nuclear threat to launch his disastrous war in Iraq, agreed to a deal -- in blatant violation of international accords and several decades of bipartisan U.S. policy -- that would enable India to double or triple its annual production of nuclear weapons.
The president turned his back on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (dismissed, like reality-based thinking, as passé) and moved the world a step closer to an accelerated nuclear arms race in Asia and elsewhere. In the president's empire-based, otherworldly way of thinking, this was a good thing.
HATS OFF TO TIM MCGRAW AND FAITH HILL
I'm a country music fan and I'm often dismayed at the right-wing slant of so many country music personalities. Recently, when I visited Merle Haggard's message board some right-wing troll was having a fit that Hag has a song critical of the war in Iraq. Many country music stars have been on board with George W. Bush, and we know how the Dixie Chicks were excoriated for criticizing Bush. So it's refreshing to see Tim McGraw and Faith Hill telling the truth about Bush's mammoth failure to help Hurricane Katrina victims. This story by Andy McSmith is at www.commondreams.org:
Faith Hill and Tim McGraw -- two stars who usually stay out of politics -- blasted the Hurricane Katrina cleanup effort, with Hill calling the slow progress in Louisiana and Mississippi "embarrassing" and "humiliating."
The country music artists -- who are natives of the storm ravaged states -- were at times close to tears, and clearly angry when the subject of Katrina came up during a news conference today. They had met with reporters in Nashville to promote their upcoming Soul2Soul II Tour, but when asked about the hurricane cleanup, the stars pulled no punches.
BUSH UNSCRIPTED
Image making is a big part of life in the United States. Corporations spend millions of dollars with advertising agencies to churn out commercials or ads that worm their way into the public consciousness. The advertising has a way of redefining itself as reality. Public relations firms are engaged to mount campaigns to either create or redeem reputations. If the campaigns are successful, they become the new reality. The strongest supporters of George W. Bush have largely brought into the image making. When you see Bush unscripted he doesn't fare well. The most recent example is the tape that emerged about Bush's meeting before Hurricane Katrina struck. There was Bush on vacation, not even asking a single question. He was hardly the decisive strong leader the image makers would have us believe. This story by Sidney Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
For the first time, last week, the public has seen the spontaneous Bush behind closed doors, in a leaked videotape that recorded his briefing the day before Hurricane Katrina struck. Teleconferenced in from his Crawford ranch, Texas, Bush listens to disaster officials inform him that the storm will be unprecedented in its severity and consequences. "This is, to put it mildly, the big one," says Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Centre, warns: "This hurricane is much larger than Hurricane Andrew ever was." Bush asks not a single question, says, "We are fully prepared", and departs.
The Katrina videotape is defining for Bush's presidency. It exposes a deaf man spouting talking points. After the hurricane hit, he stayed on vacation, went to a birthday party, strummed a guitar with a country and western singer, and on September 1 said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On his flight back to Washington, four days after landfall, his aides gave him a DVD of television news reports of the hurricane's impact about which he had done nothing to learn on his own.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
March 08, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GLOBALIZATION MAY KILL CAPITALISM
It's one thing to send jobs offshore and pay lousy wages. It's another to take those products made with cheap labor and sell them. The middle class that worked in the factories that made things in the United States also purchased things. Now those people don't have the money to make purchases. The people living in Mexico and other cheap labor markets don't have the money to purchase things. So is the good fairy going to come in the night and buy things? The whole concept of globalization is insane. This story by Jack Lessenberry is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Bizarrely, globalization may be the thing that finally validates the predictions of classic Marxism-Leninism. Capitalism as we know it was saved roughly a century ago, starting when Henry Ford decided to pay his workers enough so they could afford to buy his products.
That's a gross oversimplification of labor history, but that's essentially what happened. Later, capitalism was again saved and further strengthened when Franklin D. Roosevelt sold the nation on a social safety net. We thought of ourselves as Americans then.
Today, too many of us, especially those running large corporations, pledge allegiance to the spirit of "I'm getting mine, and to hell with you." Of course, Electrolux doesn't hope to sell many expensive refrigerators to its $35-a-week Mexican employees.
CITIZEN CONSUMERS
A recent study revealed that only one person in a thousand could name all five rights named in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Many people cannot name their Senator or their representative in Congress. But people can tell you about the latest American Idol or hum the McDonald's theme. We've been dumbed down and reduced to the role of consumers. Even that may disappear, of course, since many of us don't have any money in the Bush economy. This story by Ellen Terich is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The oligarchs in Washington have worked hard to reduce the role of citizen to that of consumer. We are no longer supposed to carefully study the issues, weigh the records of candidates, and gather facts before we vote. Campaigns are now simply the selling of a product, with the help of television advertising techniques. Handlers carefully and dishonestly craft the image of a candidate, based on the polling data they receive, to appeal to the emotions. That's what helped George W. Bush make it into the White House twice. Bush most probably didn't have a majority in either election, but his handlers were able to hide their true agenda, as well as their candidate's incompetence, with clever image-making, and he was able to get just enough votes to allow the Supreme Court, in the first election, and Diebold, in the second election, to put him into an office he was totally unqualified for.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GLOBALIZATION MAY KILL CAPITALISM
It's one thing to send jobs offshore and pay lousy wages. It's another to take those products made with cheap labor and sell them. The middle class that worked in the factories that made things in the United States also purchased things. Now those people don't have the money to make purchases. The people living in Mexico and other cheap labor markets don't have the money to purchase things. So is the good fairy going to come in the night and buy things? The whole concept of globalization is insane. This story by Jack Lessenberry is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Bizarrely, globalization may be the thing that finally validates the predictions of classic Marxism-Leninism. Capitalism as we know it was saved roughly a century ago, starting when Henry Ford decided to pay his workers enough so they could afford to buy his products.
That's a gross oversimplification of labor history, but that's essentially what happened. Later, capitalism was again saved and further strengthened when Franklin D. Roosevelt sold the nation on a social safety net. We thought of ourselves as Americans then.
Today, too many of us, especially those running large corporations, pledge allegiance to the spirit of "I'm getting mine, and to hell with you." Of course, Electrolux doesn't hope to sell many expensive refrigerators to its $35-a-week Mexican employees.
CITIZEN CONSUMERS
A recent study revealed that only one person in a thousand could name all five rights named in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Many people cannot name their Senator or their representative in Congress. But people can tell you about the latest American Idol or hum the McDonald's theme. We've been dumbed down and reduced to the role of consumers. Even that may disappear, of course, since many of us don't have any money in the Bush economy. This story by Ellen Terich is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The oligarchs in Washington have worked hard to reduce the role of citizen to that of consumer. We are no longer supposed to carefully study the issues, weigh the records of candidates, and gather facts before we vote. Campaigns are now simply the selling of a product, with the help of television advertising techniques. Handlers carefully and dishonestly craft the image of a candidate, based on the polling data they receive, to appeal to the emotions. That's what helped George W. Bush make it into the White House twice. Bush most probably didn't have a majority in either election, but his handlers were able to hide their true agenda, as well as their candidate's incompetence, with clever image-making, and he was able to get just enough votes to allow the Supreme Court, in the first election, and Diebold, in the second election, to put him into an office he was totally unqualified for.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
March 07, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH AS CORPORATE BENEFACTOR
Dick Cheney recently lectured us that we should save more and George W. Bush, on his trip to India, suggested that outsourcing isn't really so bad. You see, all we have to do is get educated for those 21st century jobs that are supposed to replace all the jobs that have been moved offshore. What Bush didn't mention is that Indians are already doing many of those 21st century jobs and at less money that it takes to live in the United States. So I guess we're supposed to be happy with those deadend service sector jobs that the economy is creating now. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.topplebush.com:
The fact is that we're living in a time when most Americans are seeing little if any benefit from overall income growth, because their share of the economic pie is falling. Between 1979 and 2003, according to a recent research paper published by the I.R.S., the share of overall income received by the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers fell from 50 percent to barely over 40 percent. The main winners from this upward redistribution of income were a tiny, wealthy elite: more than half the income share lost by the bottom 80 percent was gained by just one-fourth of 1 percent of the population, people with incomes of at least $750,000 in 2003.
And those fortunate few are the only people Mr. Bush seems to care about. Look at what he had to offer after asserting, in effect, that workers get outsourced because they don't have the right education: lower taxes, deregulation and fewer lawsuits. Funny, that doesn't sound like "pro-growth" policy to me. Instead, it sounds like a wish list for wealthy individuals and big corporations.
THE INCREDIBLY ONEROUS BANKRUPTCY LAW
Those credit card solicitations we get in the mail should probably have the logo of a great white shark on the envelope. Credit card companies are loan sharks in nicer suits. The Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress were very accommodating in giving the credit card companies their wish list. We got a bankruptcy law that makes it extremely difficult for most people to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy even due to extreme circumstances like job loss or health care costs. The irony is that the new law isn't working very well because most people who file for bankruptcy have little choice. This article by Howard Karger is at www.alternet.org:
Who are the "deadbeats" Congress is trying to weed out?
Leslie Linfield of the Institute for Financial Literacy says, "Almost half [of bankruptcy filers] have incomes below $20,000 a year, and almost 40 percent indicate that their indebtedness is due to illness or injury." The other half may be workers pushed into an economic corner. A 2006 Federal Reserve study found that real median income dropped 6 percent from 2001 to 2004, while average family income fell by 2.3 percent. The gap between stagnant or declining wages and the rising cost of living is partly being made up by debt. For example, Americans who roll over credit card balances owe anywhere from $5,100 to $14,000, depending upon whose numbers are used. High debt levels are fueled by easy credit that helps lessen the pressures on business to increase wages.
The Bankruptcy Act erected four major hurdles to deter bankruptcy. First, the Act makes it harder for people to qualify for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy that would erase most of their debt. Instead, most debtors have to file for Chapter 13, in which they face a three- to five-year court-ordered repayment plan.
WHEN HE OPENS HIS MOUTH HE'S LYING
George W. Bush could tell me water is wet and I would have to check for myself. Maybe someday a scientist will discover that lying is a disease, something that someone can't help. But as far as we know, lying is a conscious choice for the most part, particularly by a politician looking to justify his own despicable policies. Every day it's just more of the same from Bush and the members of his vile administration. This article by Bill Gallagher is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The mainstream American media, which long ignored or supported President George Bush's string of disasters, are finally catching on to what a growing majority of American people know: This frat-boy slacker, selected president because of his name and big-bucks supporters, this media-made Churchillian figure standing in the rubble of the Twin Towers, has been out of touch -- and often out of sight -- for every major national crisis before and since.
Bush, the great leader and commander, the protector of his people, is a myth. His now-dwindling support was built on the manufactured consent of fear, and now a majority rejects his handling of his hallmark issue. A Bloomberg-Los Angeles Times poll shows 54 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of terrorism. Hallelujah! The biggest lie of our times, that Bush makes us safer, is crumbling.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH AS CORPORATE BENEFACTOR
Dick Cheney recently lectured us that we should save more and George W. Bush, on his trip to India, suggested that outsourcing isn't really so bad. You see, all we have to do is get educated for those 21st century jobs that are supposed to replace all the jobs that have been moved offshore. What Bush didn't mention is that Indians are already doing many of those 21st century jobs and at less money that it takes to live in the United States. So I guess we're supposed to be happy with those deadend service sector jobs that the economy is creating now. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.topplebush.com:
The fact is that we're living in a time when most Americans are seeing little if any benefit from overall income growth, because their share of the economic pie is falling. Between 1979 and 2003, according to a recent research paper published by the I.R.S., the share of overall income received by the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers fell from 50 percent to barely over 40 percent. The main winners from this upward redistribution of income were a tiny, wealthy elite: more than half the income share lost by the bottom 80 percent was gained by just one-fourth of 1 percent of the population, people with incomes of at least $750,000 in 2003.
And those fortunate few are the only people Mr. Bush seems to care about. Look at what he had to offer after asserting, in effect, that workers get outsourced because they don't have the right education: lower taxes, deregulation and fewer lawsuits. Funny, that doesn't sound like "pro-growth" policy to me. Instead, it sounds like a wish list for wealthy individuals and big corporations.
THE INCREDIBLY ONEROUS BANKRUPTCY LAW
Those credit card solicitations we get in the mail should probably have the logo of a great white shark on the envelope. Credit card companies are loan sharks in nicer suits. The Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress were very accommodating in giving the credit card companies their wish list. We got a bankruptcy law that makes it extremely difficult for most people to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy even due to extreme circumstances like job loss or health care costs. The irony is that the new law isn't working very well because most people who file for bankruptcy have little choice. This article by Howard Karger is at www.alternet.org:
Who are the "deadbeats" Congress is trying to weed out?
Leslie Linfield of the Institute for Financial Literacy says, "Almost half [of bankruptcy filers] have incomes below $20,000 a year, and almost 40 percent indicate that their indebtedness is due to illness or injury." The other half may be workers pushed into an economic corner. A 2006 Federal Reserve study found that real median income dropped 6 percent from 2001 to 2004, while average family income fell by 2.3 percent. The gap between stagnant or declining wages and the rising cost of living is partly being made up by debt. For example, Americans who roll over credit card balances owe anywhere from $5,100 to $14,000, depending upon whose numbers are used. High debt levels are fueled by easy credit that helps lessen the pressures on business to increase wages.
The Bankruptcy Act erected four major hurdles to deter bankruptcy. First, the Act makes it harder for people to qualify for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy that would erase most of their debt. Instead, most debtors have to file for Chapter 13, in which they face a three- to five-year court-ordered repayment plan.
WHEN HE OPENS HIS MOUTH HE'S LYING
George W. Bush could tell me water is wet and I would have to check for myself. Maybe someday a scientist will discover that lying is a disease, something that someone can't help. But as far as we know, lying is a conscious choice for the most part, particularly by a politician looking to justify his own despicable policies. Every day it's just more of the same from Bush and the members of his vile administration. This article by Bill Gallagher is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The mainstream American media, which long ignored or supported President George Bush's string of disasters, are finally catching on to what a growing majority of American people know: This frat-boy slacker, selected president because of his name and big-bucks supporters, this media-made Churchillian figure standing in the rubble of the Twin Towers, has been out of touch -- and often out of sight -- for every major national crisis before and since.
Bush, the great leader and commander, the protector of his people, is a myth. His now-dwindling support was built on the manufactured consent of fear, and now a majority rejects his handling of his hallmark issue. A Bloomberg-Los Angeles Times poll shows 54 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of terrorism. Hallelujah! The biggest lie of our times, that Bush makes us safer, is crumbling.
Monday, March 06, 2006
March 06, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE AMAZING KATRINA DEBACLE
There's no question the Bush administration blew it in preparing for Hurricane Katrina, and they've continued to blow it since the hurricane struck the Gulf Coast. A video tape released last week showed a disturbingly passive George W. Bush as he was briefed about the impending hurricane. Days later he lied on television when he said there was no way they could have anticipated the breach of the levees. Then he made a big speech from New Orleans with an impressive backdrop, ignoring the rubble, promising the federal government would do everything it could to rebuild the Big Easy. Six months after the hurricane very little has been done. This article by Richard Wolffe and Mark Hosenball is at msnbc.msn.com:
Republicans and Democrats in Congress are frustrated by the lack of progress on the ground, saying there are continued delays in producing FEMA flood maps. The maps will effectively dictate which blocks can survive, especially in poorer, black neighborhoods such as the Lower Ninth Ward. "Every day that goes by is another day that a homeowner can't rebuild their home... can't decide whether to take their kids out of school," says GOP Rep. Bobby Jindal. And New Orleans still lacks hospitals for its poorest residents, so doctors have set up clinics under tents. Last month thousands of residents got free treatment amid the animal houses of the Audubon Zoo, the only site big enough to cope.
CAN THE "HEARTLAND" NONSENSE
It's almost a cliche for older people to remember how things were truly different in their day. It's that kind of Ma and Pa Kettle world, or the tableaus of a Norman Rockwell. It's a place that never existed. Back in the Fifties the Beat Generation was a threat. In the Sixties the Hippies and peace movement threatened the conformists. You get the Chicken Little conformists in every generation and they always lament that Hollywood doesn't reflect the "heartland." In this essay James Wolcott shows that the "heartland" is a myth. This essay is at jameswolcott.com:
It doesn't exist. It's a metaphor for all the simple good things Americans would believe in if they flattered themselves by believing in simple good things. (Go reread Sherwood Anderson or Sinclair Lewis if you want to savor the loneliness and cultureless vacuity of so much of the bedrock America we insist on coloring with Norman Rockwell nostalgia.) It's true that more Americans than usual are unaquainted and uninterested in the Oscar pics this year, but how many Americans saw McCabe and Mrs. Miller when it came out? Or Mean Streets? Not that long ago, the Oscars noms were panned because for being an index of popularity, not quality; now quality prevails in the judging, tastes have improved even at the Golden Globes, and the kvetching chorus is complaining that the finalists chosen aren't commercial enough, and don't reflect the interests and values of average Americans. There's no such thing as an average American anymore (if there ever was), unless by "average American" you mean (as news producers and pundits seem to do) white, middle-aged, heterosexual Christian small-towners and suburbanites who won't even be watching the Academy Awards because it'll be past their bedtime and they have elk to milk the next morning.
SO MUCH FOR PARENTAL CONSENT LAWS
Abortion opponents have tried various strategies to make abortion more difficult or impossible to obtain. One of the worst ideas is parental consent. I have real problems with it because a male guardian or relative may be responsible for the pregnancy in the first place, and then a victimized young woman is supposed to get his permission for an abortion? It's interesting that parental consent laws aren't reducing the number of abortions. This story by ANDREW LEHREN and JOHN LELAND is at www.nytimes.com:
For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows.
The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE AMAZING KATRINA DEBACLE
There's no question the Bush administration blew it in preparing for Hurricane Katrina, and they've continued to blow it since the hurricane struck the Gulf Coast. A video tape released last week showed a disturbingly passive George W. Bush as he was briefed about the impending hurricane. Days later he lied on television when he said there was no way they could have anticipated the breach of the levees. Then he made a big speech from New Orleans with an impressive backdrop, ignoring the rubble, promising the federal government would do everything it could to rebuild the Big Easy. Six months after the hurricane very little has been done. This article by Richard Wolffe and Mark Hosenball is at msnbc.msn.com:
Republicans and Democrats in Congress are frustrated by the lack of progress on the ground, saying there are continued delays in producing FEMA flood maps. The maps will effectively dictate which blocks can survive, especially in poorer, black neighborhoods such as the Lower Ninth Ward. "Every day that goes by is another day that a homeowner can't rebuild their home... can't decide whether to take their kids out of school," says GOP Rep. Bobby Jindal. And New Orleans still lacks hospitals for its poorest residents, so doctors have set up clinics under tents. Last month thousands of residents got free treatment amid the animal houses of the Audubon Zoo, the only site big enough to cope.
CAN THE "HEARTLAND" NONSENSE
It's almost a cliche for older people to remember how things were truly different in their day. It's that kind of Ma and Pa Kettle world, or the tableaus of a Norman Rockwell. It's a place that never existed. Back in the Fifties the Beat Generation was a threat. In the Sixties the Hippies and peace movement threatened the conformists. You get the Chicken Little conformists in every generation and they always lament that Hollywood doesn't reflect the "heartland." In this essay James Wolcott shows that the "heartland" is a myth. This essay is at jameswolcott.com:
It doesn't exist. It's a metaphor for all the simple good things Americans would believe in if they flattered themselves by believing in simple good things. (Go reread Sherwood Anderson or Sinclair Lewis if you want to savor the loneliness and cultureless vacuity of so much of the bedrock America we insist on coloring with Norman Rockwell nostalgia.) It's true that more Americans than usual are unaquainted and uninterested in the Oscar pics this year, but how many Americans saw McCabe and Mrs. Miller when it came out? Or Mean Streets? Not that long ago, the Oscars noms were panned because for being an index of popularity, not quality; now quality prevails in the judging, tastes have improved even at the Golden Globes, and the kvetching chorus is complaining that the finalists chosen aren't commercial enough, and don't reflect the interests and values of average Americans. There's no such thing as an average American anymore (if there ever was), unless by "average American" you mean (as news producers and pundits seem to do) white, middle-aged, heterosexual Christian small-towners and suburbanites who won't even be watching the Academy Awards because it'll be past their bedtime and they have elk to milk the next morning.
SO MUCH FOR PARENTAL CONSENT LAWS
Abortion opponents have tried various strategies to make abortion more difficult or impossible to obtain. One of the worst ideas is parental consent. I have real problems with it because a male guardian or relative may be responsible for the pregnancy in the first place, and then a victimized young woman is supposed to get his permission for an abortion? It's interesting that parental consent laws aren't reducing the number of abortions. This story by ANDREW LEHREN and JOHN LELAND is at www.nytimes.com:
For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows.
The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
March 05, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE SPIN ON BUSH'S LEVEE LIE
I happened to catch a little bit of an interview with former FEMA head Michael Brown on FOX this morning. Then there was the ensuing panel discussion. Brit Hume stated what has apparently become a right-wing talking point about Bush's lie about the levees in New Orleans. The talking point is that Bush had been told about "overtopping," not breaching. "Overtopping" isn't as serious, evidently. But mediamatters.org has taken a look at the evidence and Bush isn't off the hook. This item comes from mediamatters.org:
On NBC's Nightly News and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, news correspondents uncritically reported the White House's latest attempt to explain how recent videotapes of Hurricane Katrina conference calls that show pre-Katrina warnings to President Bush about the "grave" risk of flooding in New Orleans do not contradict the president's debunked statement two days later that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." NBC senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers reported that National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield "told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped, not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened." Similarly, a Special Report news segment by Fox News general assignment reporter Mike Emanuel aired White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy telling Emanuel that "overtop means that the water goes over the top, as the word implies. Breaching means that they actually fail, there's a hole in the levee, and a breach is obviously far worse." But neither report noted that key facts undermine the White House's latest explanation.
A GOVERNMENT OF SOUND BITES AND ILLUSION
We're told we're the land of the free and the home of the brave. The process of brain washing us starts almost from birth. Television is an amazing device for brain washing. It instills consumerism into us even as toddlers. Then we go to school and get the very sanitized version of American history and American life. We're not told much of the genocide directed toward Native Americans and we don't get much information about the realities of slavery. We don't hear about the subjugation of women, or the constant war against the working class. We're sold the idea of corporate moguls like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller as heroes, people we should admire and emulate. Perhaps most of all, we're told the United States has always been righteous. If we wage a war, it's against the bad guys. If we lock up people or execute them, it's because they deserve it. This is an interesting essay at www.consortiumnews.com that looks at the manifold failures of the Bush administration to live up to the hype. The article is by Alex Sabbeth:
Take a look at New Orleans today. It resembles the burned out blocks of Detroit, not rebuilt since riots decades ago, testifying to a basic truth. America's wealth and power are not directed towards our well-being and security.
Maybe it's easier to grasp this when pondering Sept 11. Our vaunted military did not protect us from low-tech attacks. America has over 800 military bases strung across the globe, but the fact is New York and Washington were not protected.
Doubtful? We were warned about Katrina for years. Newt Gingrich is right when he asks how we can think we're safe when New Orleans was destroyed under our noses. [Fox News, Sept. 6, 2005]
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE SPIN ON BUSH'S LEVEE LIE
I happened to catch a little bit of an interview with former FEMA head Michael Brown on FOX this morning. Then there was the ensuing panel discussion. Brit Hume stated what has apparently become a right-wing talking point about Bush's lie about the levees in New Orleans. The talking point is that Bush had been told about "overtopping," not breaching. "Overtopping" isn't as serious, evidently. But mediamatters.org has taken a look at the evidence and Bush isn't off the hook. This item comes from mediamatters.org:
On NBC's Nightly News and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, news correspondents uncritically reported the White House's latest attempt to explain how recent videotapes of Hurricane Katrina conference calls that show pre-Katrina warnings to President Bush about the "grave" risk of flooding in New Orleans do not contradict the president's debunked statement two days later that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." NBC senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers reported that National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield "told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped, not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened." Similarly, a Special Report news segment by Fox News general assignment reporter Mike Emanuel aired White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy telling Emanuel that "overtop means that the water goes over the top, as the word implies. Breaching means that they actually fail, there's a hole in the levee, and a breach is obviously far worse." But neither report noted that key facts undermine the White House's latest explanation.
A GOVERNMENT OF SOUND BITES AND ILLUSION
We're told we're the land of the free and the home of the brave. The process of brain washing us starts almost from birth. Television is an amazing device for brain washing. It instills consumerism into us even as toddlers. Then we go to school and get the very sanitized version of American history and American life. We're not told much of the genocide directed toward Native Americans and we don't get much information about the realities of slavery. We don't hear about the subjugation of women, or the constant war against the working class. We're sold the idea of corporate moguls like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller as heroes, people we should admire and emulate. Perhaps most of all, we're told the United States has always been righteous. If we wage a war, it's against the bad guys. If we lock up people or execute them, it's because they deserve it. This is an interesting essay at www.consortiumnews.com that looks at the manifold failures of the Bush administration to live up to the hype. The article is by Alex Sabbeth:
Take a look at New Orleans today. It resembles the burned out blocks of Detroit, not rebuilt since riots decades ago, testifying to a basic truth. America's wealth and power are not directed towards our well-being and security.
Maybe it's easier to grasp this when pondering Sept 11. Our vaunted military did not protect us from low-tech attacks. America has over 800 military bases strung across the globe, but the fact is New York and Washington were not protected.
Doubtful? We were warned about Katrina for years. Newt Gingrich is right when he asks how we can think we're safe when New Orleans was destroyed under our noses. [Fox News, Sept. 6, 2005]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)