February 28, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CRIME PAYS FOR PRIVATE PRISONS
There shouldn't be a profit to be made in everything. Common decency would suggest that profiting from the misery of others is morally and ethically wrong. Now we have private prisons that literally profit from crime. In this article Amy Goodman talks about the booming business of prison for profit. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
CCA is the largest publicly traded private prison operator in the U.S. CCA has close to 70 facilities scattered across the country, recent earnings of $1.33 billion and a gain in its stock-share price of 85 percent in the past year. Industry analysts gush at the profit potential promised by private prisons. Their commodity: human beings.
A recent report issued jointly by two nonprofit agencies—the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service— titled “Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families,” paints a grim picture of the conditions these families endure. While in 2005 Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain families in “non-penal, homelike environments,” the report details how prisonlike the Hutto facility is. While ICE announced Hutto as a new facility, it was formerly a prison.
Children as young as 6 are separated from their parents, kept in prison cells with heavy steel doors equipped with a sensitive laser alarm system. The children wear prison uniforms. They get one hour of school per day, and one hour of recreation. All non-lawyer visits are “non-contact,” through a plexiglass window speaking over a phone, to obviate the “necessity” of a full-body cavity search after each visit. Yet the chairman of the CCA board of directors, William Andrews, begs to differ: “The reports come from special-interest groups that are attempting to do away with privatization and the whole immigration situation. ... The family facility, particularly, at T. Don Hutto is almost like a home.” Recent reports put the total number of children at Hutto between 170 and 200.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
February 27, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LEARNING LABOR HISTORY
In the United States there is a tremendous bias toward big business and capitalists. You have major attention focused on the stock market every day, but you seldom hear stories about unions or labor issues. Capitalists from Rockefeller to Mellon to Bill Gates get reverential attention, and great labor leaders get negative or no attention at all. We're sold a fantasy in this country that if you work hard and get educated you can be wealthy. It doesn't happen for most of us. Most of us are at the mercy of business our entire working lives. No matter how well you do your job, no matter how dutiful you are, you can be unemployed in a heartbeat. Working people need to get educated about the reality of being a member of the working class in the United States. This article by Charles Sullivan is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The American worker, like the chattel slave before him, is kept in a state of perpetual ignorance by the Plutocracy for fear that he/she might awaken and rebel. Rebellion was the greatest fear that haunted the dreams of the plantation owners, and the uprisings led by Nat Turner and John Brown continues to trouble the dreams of the ruling clique, which explains why we are under constant surveillance by the government. They are looking for signs of trouble, the tell-tale smoke of social upheaval born of organization.
Students of American history, especially labor history, cannot help but come to the realization that we have been had, sold a defective bill of goods that can never work for us or the rest of the world.
The American dream is a myth that was fabricated in the corporate board rooms of America and perpetuated in the corporate media. Ninety-five percent of the people will never have pie in the sky, no matter how long and hard they work. A life of ease is something that is reserved for the privileged few who do not work and produce nothing. The myth was created to keep the workers striving, and to keep the rabble in line. It is a myth with the power of a paradigm and it has been extremely effective as a method of control and motivation.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LEARNING LABOR HISTORY
In the United States there is a tremendous bias toward big business and capitalists. You have major attention focused on the stock market every day, but you seldom hear stories about unions or labor issues. Capitalists from Rockefeller to Mellon to Bill Gates get reverential attention, and great labor leaders get negative or no attention at all. We're sold a fantasy in this country that if you work hard and get educated you can be wealthy. It doesn't happen for most of us. Most of us are at the mercy of business our entire working lives. No matter how well you do your job, no matter how dutiful you are, you can be unemployed in a heartbeat. Working people need to get educated about the reality of being a member of the working class in the United States. This article by Charles Sullivan is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The American worker, like the chattel slave before him, is kept in a state of perpetual ignorance by the Plutocracy for fear that he/she might awaken and rebel. Rebellion was the greatest fear that haunted the dreams of the plantation owners, and the uprisings led by Nat Turner and John Brown continues to trouble the dreams of the ruling clique, which explains why we are under constant surveillance by the government. They are looking for signs of trouble, the tell-tale smoke of social upheaval born of organization.
Students of American history, especially labor history, cannot help but come to the realization that we have been had, sold a defective bill of goods that can never work for us or the rest of the world.
The American dream is a myth that was fabricated in the corporate board rooms of America and perpetuated in the corporate media. Ninety-five percent of the people will never have pie in the sky, no matter how long and hard they work. A life of ease is something that is reserved for the privileged few who do not work and produce nothing. The myth was created to keep the workers striving, and to keep the rabble in line. It is a myth with the power of a paradigm and it has been extremely effective as a method of control and motivation.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
February 25, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S BLUNDERS ON TERRORISM
A consistent right-wing talking point these days is that we have to fight terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. The implication is that the war in Iraq is reducing incidents of terrorism. A new study published by Mother Jones magazine shows the contrary. Since the invasion of Iraq, there has been a dramatic increase in terrorism around the world. This article by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank is at www.motherjones.com:
Our study draws its data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at terrorismknowledgebase.org), which is widely considered to be the best publicly available database on terrorism incidents. RAND defines a terrorist attack as an attack on a civilian entity designed to promote fear or alarm and further a particular political agenda. In our study we only included attacks that caused at least one fatality and were attributed by RAND to a known jihadist group. In some terrorist attacks, and this is especially the case in Iraq, RAND has not been able to attribute a particular attack to a known jihadist group. Therefore our study likely understates the extent of jihadist terrorism in Iraq and around the world.
Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.
And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S BLUNDERS ON TERRORISM
A consistent right-wing talking point these days is that we have to fight terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. The implication is that the war in Iraq is reducing incidents of terrorism. A new study published by Mother Jones magazine shows the contrary. Since the invasion of Iraq, there has been a dramatic increase in terrorism around the world. This article by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank is at www.motherjones.com:
Our study draws its data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at terrorismknowledgebase.org), which is widely considered to be the best publicly available database on terrorism incidents. RAND defines a terrorist attack as an attack on a civilian entity designed to promote fear or alarm and further a particular political agenda. In our study we only included attacks that caused at least one fatality and were attributed by RAND to a known jihadist group. In some terrorist attacks, and this is especially the case in Iraq, RAND has not been able to attribute a particular attack to a known jihadist group. Therefore our study likely understates the extent of jihadist terrorism in Iraq and around the world.
Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.
And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.
Friday, February 23, 2007
February 23, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SHAFTING MEXICO'S POOR
I find this story interesting on several levels. I worked for Mission Foods, a division of the Gruma Corporation, for several years. Mission makes tortillas, chips, and Mexican pastries. I heard mention of the head of Gruma, Roberto Gonzalez Barrera, when I was there. He was called "Don Roberto" and his portrait in the conference room reminded me of Don Corleone. Gruma has major ties to Archer Daniels Midland, and both companies are doing quite well at the expense of Mexico's poor, who rely on tortillas to survive. This article by Tom Philpott is at grist.org/comments/food/2007/02/22/tortillas/:
Indeed, the same company responsible for rigging up the U.S. corn-based ethanol market is also profiting handsomely from soaring tortilla prices. Archer Daniels Midland, the leading U.S. ethanol maker and the world's biggest grain buyer, owns a 27 percent stake in Gruma, Mexico's dominant tortilla maker. ADM also owns a 40 percent share in a joint venture with Gruma to mill and refine wheat -- meaning that when Mexican consumers are forced by high tortilla prices to switch to white bread, Gruma and ADM still win.
In Mexico, the tortilla is more than an iconic food with ancient roots. It's a dietary staple -- as important in its way as rice is to the Asian diet. According to the Mexican business daily El Financiero, Mexicans who eat a traditional diet gain 50 percent of their calories, and 70 percent of their calcium, from tortillas and other corn-based products. Another expert reckons tortillas account for 40 percent of protein in such diets. Corn cultivation originated in Mesoamerica -- comprised of present-day southern Mexico and parts of Central America -- and the region still maintains the crop's most robust store of genetic diversity.
Traditional Mexican fare -- tortillas and beans, supplemented by chile-pepper-based condiments and, when possible, meat -- still largely sustains the nation's vast working-poor population. The median Mexican income is $4 per day, meaning that half of the nation's 107 million people live on that much or less. Fed by similar diets, cultures ranging from the ancient Mayans to the 16th-century Aztecs flourished.
US POVERTY DRAMATICALLY INCREASING
There's something wrong with an economic system that rewards a very few with most of the country's wealth. I don't buy the right-wing argument that rich people are better, more creative, harder working, etc. It's a convenient rationale for a system that is stacked against working people in this country. We now have the highest poverty rates in over 30 years. Poverty and Republican administrations go together. This article by Tony Pugh is linked at www.commondreams.org:
The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.
The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SHAFTING MEXICO'S POOR
I find this story interesting on several levels. I worked for Mission Foods, a division of the Gruma Corporation, for several years. Mission makes tortillas, chips, and Mexican pastries. I heard mention of the head of Gruma, Roberto Gonzalez Barrera, when I was there. He was called "Don Roberto" and his portrait in the conference room reminded me of Don Corleone. Gruma has major ties to Archer Daniels Midland, and both companies are doing quite well at the expense of Mexico's poor, who rely on tortillas to survive. This article by Tom Philpott is at grist.org/comments/food/2007/02/22/tortillas/:
Indeed, the same company responsible for rigging up the U.S. corn-based ethanol market is also profiting handsomely from soaring tortilla prices. Archer Daniels Midland, the leading U.S. ethanol maker and the world's biggest grain buyer, owns a 27 percent stake in Gruma, Mexico's dominant tortilla maker. ADM also owns a 40 percent share in a joint venture with Gruma to mill and refine wheat -- meaning that when Mexican consumers are forced by high tortilla prices to switch to white bread, Gruma and ADM still win.
In Mexico, the tortilla is more than an iconic food with ancient roots. It's a dietary staple -- as important in its way as rice is to the Asian diet. According to the Mexican business daily El Financiero, Mexicans who eat a traditional diet gain 50 percent of their calories, and 70 percent of their calcium, from tortillas and other corn-based products. Another expert reckons tortillas account for 40 percent of protein in such diets. Corn cultivation originated in Mesoamerica -- comprised of present-day southern Mexico and parts of Central America -- and the region still maintains the crop's most robust store of genetic diversity.
Traditional Mexican fare -- tortillas and beans, supplemented by chile-pepper-based condiments and, when possible, meat -- still largely sustains the nation's vast working-poor population. The median Mexican income is $4 per day, meaning that half of the nation's 107 million people live on that much or less. Fed by similar diets, cultures ranging from the ancient Mayans to the 16th-century Aztecs flourished.
US POVERTY DRAMATICALLY INCREASING
There's something wrong with an economic system that rewards a very few with most of the country's wealth. I don't buy the right-wing argument that rich people are better, more creative, harder working, etc. It's a convenient rationale for a system that is stacked against working people in this country. We now have the highest poverty rates in over 30 years. Poverty and Republican administrations go together. This article by Tony Pugh is linked at www.commondreams.org:
The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.
The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
February 22, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOO MANY MORONS
The Central Valley can be a difficult place to live if you have an IQ above room temperature. Today is reactionary day in the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One idiot says he'll forgive the Dixie Chicks when the Vietnam veterans forgive Jane Fonda. One really over-the-top jerk refers to the "socialist" press and calls the Democrats who voted for a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives cut and run defeatists. We get the usual blather about this giving aid and comfort to our enemies. The fact is our enemies love the United States military being bogged down in Iraq. They couldn't have gotten a bigger gift from George W. Bush than this so-called troop surge that bogs us down even more. I wonder how Mr. Foaming at the Mouth is reacting to the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Are the British "cut and run defeatists" too?
WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP
The neocon philosophy that gained mainstream power with Ronald Reagan is like corrosive acid on the United States. Neocon "morality" believes in the forcible creation of "democracy. " It's a "democracy" that is compliant to the wishes of the United States political and corporate elites. Torture against Americans is an outrage, but torture of other people is perfectly legitimate. Neocons and their followers can talk casually of using nuclear weapons to kill millions of people. Neocons will lie and subvert science to fight efforts against global warming. Neocons will transfer most of the country's wealth to the few at the top. Neocons will ignore an American city like New Orleans and leave it to drown. Neocons will "protect" our freedom by destroying our civil liberties. This is a good commentary by Robert Parry about the war in Iraq that is already lost. The article is at www.truthout.org:
Despite the sacrifices in lives, treasure and liberties, the painful reality is that the United States is losing the "war on terror" - in large part because too many people in the Middle East and across the globe view George W. Bush as a bully and a hypocrite.
Bush has become the ugly face of America, mouthing pretty words about freedom and democracy while threatening other nations and bludgeoning those who get in his way. Perhaps even worse, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent commander, especially for a conflict as complicated and nuanced as this one.
Indeed, it is hard to envision how the United States can win the crucial battles for the hearts and minds of key populations if Bush remains President. Arguably, Bush has become a "clear and present danger" to the interests of the American people - yet he still has almost two years left in his term.
This predicament - the desperate need for new U.S. leadership and the difficult fact of being stuck with Bush - was underscored by the Feb. 19 lead article in the New York Times describing the revival of al-Qaeda as a worldwide terror network operating out of new bases in remote sections of Pakistan.
"American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan," the Times reported.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOO MANY MORONS
The Central Valley can be a difficult place to live if you have an IQ above room temperature. Today is reactionary day in the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One idiot says he'll forgive the Dixie Chicks when the Vietnam veterans forgive Jane Fonda. One really over-the-top jerk refers to the "socialist" press and calls the Democrats who voted for a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives cut and run defeatists. We get the usual blather about this giving aid and comfort to our enemies. The fact is our enemies love the United States military being bogged down in Iraq. They couldn't have gotten a bigger gift from George W. Bush than this so-called troop surge that bogs us down even more. I wonder how Mr. Foaming at the Mouth is reacting to the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Are the British "cut and run defeatists" too?
WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP
The neocon philosophy that gained mainstream power with Ronald Reagan is like corrosive acid on the United States. Neocon "morality" believes in the forcible creation of "democracy. " It's a "democracy" that is compliant to the wishes of the United States political and corporate elites. Torture against Americans is an outrage, but torture of other people is perfectly legitimate. Neocons and their followers can talk casually of using nuclear weapons to kill millions of people. Neocons will lie and subvert science to fight efforts against global warming. Neocons will transfer most of the country's wealth to the few at the top. Neocons will ignore an American city like New Orleans and leave it to drown. Neocons will "protect" our freedom by destroying our civil liberties. This is a good commentary by Robert Parry about the war in Iraq that is already lost. The article is at www.truthout.org:
Despite the sacrifices in lives, treasure and liberties, the painful reality is that the United States is losing the "war on terror" - in large part because too many people in the Middle East and across the globe view George W. Bush as a bully and a hypocrite.
Bush has become the ugly face of America, mouthing pretty words about freedom and democracy while threatening other nations and bludgeoning those who get in his way. Perhaps even worse, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent commander, especially for a conflict as complicated and nuanced as this one.
Indeed, it is hard to envision how the United States can win the crucial battles for the hearts and minds of key populations if Bush remains President. Arguably, Bush has become a "clear and present danger" to the interests of the American people - yet he still has almost two years left in his term.
This predicament - the desperate need for new U.S. leadership and the difficult fact of being stuck with Bush - was underscored by the Feb. 19 lead article in the New York Times describing the revival of al-Qaeda as a worldwide terror network operating out of new bases in remote sections of Pakistan.
"American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan," the Times reported.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
February 21, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE GROSSLY UNFAIR ECONOMY
Economic statistics are frequently like dealing with a quick change artist. After he walks away you find you've been had. We get all kinds of statistics about our wonderful economy, the number of jobs created, the rising incomes for everyone. But it's simply not true. Government policy since the Nixon years has consistently been tilted to make the rich richer. The incomes of most of us are stagnant or falling, even as everything else gets more expensive. This has happened even though worker productivity is at record levels. This article by Joel S. Hirshhorn is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that incomes at all levels are rising; it's just that incomes at the upper end are rising much faster. Minor increases for the many are not the same as staggering increases for the few. And that’s what economic inequality and injustice are all about.
An expanding Upper Class does NOT mean that those below that class are doing equally well. Between 1979 and 2005, the percentage of the prime wage-earners aged 25 to 59 earning more than $100,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars grew by nearly 13 percentage points. But the overall population grew by more than 30 percent. So the Lower Class is expanding more rapidly than the Upper Class and they are not getting the increases in wages and benefits that they deserve.
Third Way removed lower and higher age Americans and non-married households from their data to emphasize the median income of married-couple households at more than $72,000, up 22 percent from 1979 to 2005 when adjusted for inflation (and not that impressive for 25 years). If both work outside the home it is $81,000. Guess what? Less than half of American households fit the married couple category, and even fewer in the prime wage-earner class. If you include the many unmarried households in this age range the median drops to $61,000. If all households are counted, the median drops sharply to just over $46,000.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE GROSSLY UNFAIR ECONOMY
Economic statistics are frequently like dealing with a quick change artist. After he walks away you find you've been had. We get all kinds of statistics about our wonderful economy, the number of jobs created, the rising incomes for everyone. But it's simply not true. Government policy since the Nixon years has consistently been tilted to make the rich richer. The incomes of most of us are stagnant or falling, even as everything else gets more expensive. This has happened even though worker productivity is at record levels. This article by Joel S. Hirshhorn is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that incomes at all levels are rising; it's just that incomes at the upper end are rising much faster. Minor increases for the many are not the same as staggering increases for the few. And that’s what economic inequality and injustice are all about.
An expanding Upper Class does NOT mean that those below that class are doing equally well. Between 1979 and 2005, the percentage of the prime wage-earners aged 25 to 59 earning more than $100,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars grew by nearly 13 percentage points. But the overall population grew by more than 30 percent. So the Lower Class is expanding more rapidly than the Upper Class and they are not getting the increases in wages and benefits that they deserve.
Third Way removed lower and higher age Americans and non-married households from their data to emphasize the median income of married-couple households at more than $72,000, up 22 percent from 1979 to 2005 when adjusted for inflation (and not that impressive for 25 years). If both work outside the home it is $81,000. Guess what? Less than half of American households fit the married couple category, and even fewer in the prime wage-earner class. If you include the many unmarried households in this age range the median drops to $61,000. If all households are counted, the median drops sharply to just over $46,000.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NEOCON HEGEMONY
I've started reading Stanley Karnow's history of the Vietnam war, Vietnam A History. It's amazing how many parallels there are between Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam our troops were in constant combat, unlike the veterans of the Second World War. You never knew who the enemy was in Vietnam and you don't know who the enemy is in Iraq until he strikes. The Vietnamese effectively used guerilla warfare, just as we see in Iraq now. We were told by the elites that Vietnam couldn't fall to the Communists because the rest of southeast Asia would fall like dominoes. Now we're told we can't lose in Iraq because it means the impending destruction of western civilization. In this article Ernest Partridge looks at the imperial dreams of neocons like George Bush and Dick Cheney and the incredible mess they've created. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the sole remaining super-power. Many saw this extraordinary situation as an opportunity at last for world disarmament, a concerted attack on poverty and disease, and global harmony under a rule of international law.
Not the neo conservatives.
Instead, they announced, this was to be “The American Century” – a “benevolent global hegemony” imposed upon the world by the sole remaining super-power, the United States. In this new world order, the United States would renounce treaties and international law at will if they were found to be contrary to the interests of the “hegemon.” Military action by the super power would be taken “preventatively” if there was a perceived possibility that an upstart nation might resist the “order” with force. Aggressive initiatives would be taken to assure that no rival super power would arise to challenge the global hegemony.
The United States would, in short, become the kind of world empire we claimed that we were struggling, throughout the cold war, to prevent the Soviet Union from becoming.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NEOCON HEGEMONY
I've started reading Stanley Karnow's history of the Vietnam war, Vietnam A History. It's amazing how many parallels there are between Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam our troops were in constant combat, unlike the veterans of the Second World War. You never knew who the enemy was in Vietnam and you don't know who the enemy is in Iraq until he strikes. The Vietnamese effectively used guerilla warfare, just as we see in Iraq now. We were told by the elites that Vietnam couldn't fall to the Communists because the rest of southeast Asia would fall like dominoes. Now we're told we can't lose in Iraq because it means the impending destruction of western civilization. In this article Ernest Partridge looks at the imperial dreams of neocons like George Bush and Dick Cheney and the incredible mess they've created. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the sole remaining super-power. Many saw this extraordinary situation as an opportunity at last for world disarmament, a concerted attack on poverty and disease, and global harmony under a rule of international law.
Not the neo conservatives.
Instead, they announced, this was to be “The American Century” – a “benevolent global hegemony” imposed upon the world by the sole remaining super-power, the United States. In this new world order, the United States would renounce treaties and international law at will if they were found to be contrary to the interests of the “hegemon.” Military action by the super power would be taken “preventatively” if there was a perceived possibility that an upstart nation might resist the “order” with force. Aggressive initiatives would be taken to assure that no rival super power would arise to challenge the global hegemony.
The United States would, in short, become the kind of world empire we claimed that we were struggling, throughout the cold war, to prevent the Soviet Union from becoming.
Monday, February 19, 2007
February 19, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NATIONAL GUARD NEEDED HERE
Among the many ridiculous arguments made by supporters of the Iraq war is the claim that we have to fight terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here. Intelligence tells us that most of the people attacking U. S. troops in Iraq are not members of al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They're Iraqis trying to drive out an invader. The Bush administration has left a gaping hole in our domestic security by deploying so many National Guard troops to Iraq. We saw some of the effects of that when Louisiana National Guard troops were not available to assist during Hurricane Katrina. This commentary by former Senator Gary Hart is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Today, more than 40% of our combat and combat support units in Iraq are National Guard and Reserve forces. We cannot continue to maintain and expand our military operations in Iraq without these Guard and Reserve forces. Many of their units have been redeployed multiple times in violation of the agreements Guard members sign when they enlist. We are exhausting not only our regular standing combat troops, we are also exhausting the deployed Guard and Reserve units.
Most important, the National Guard units in Iraq are not in the United States standing post over our nation's security at home. They are not being trained and equipped for this vital mission. If we are in fact at war with terrorism, we are leaving our homeland flanks totally exposed. The Administration and its supporters have excused this dereliction in security with the hollow slogan: We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
This specious argument fails on several counts. The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home. And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify. It is the United States that cannot fight them there using National Guard forces needed to fight them here.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NATIONAL GUARD NEEDED HERE
Among the many ridiculous arguments made by supporters of the Iraq war is the claim that we have to fight terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here. Intelligence tells us that most of the people attacking U. S. troops in Iraq are not members of al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They're Iraqis trying to drive out an invader. The Bush administration has left a gaping hole in our domestic security by deploying so many National Guard troops to Iraq. We saw some of the effects of that when Louisiana National Guard troops were not available to assist during Hurricane Katrina. This commentary by former Senator Gary Hart is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Today, more than 40% of our combat and combat support units in Iraq are National Guard and Reserve forces. We cannot continue to maintain and expand our military operations in Iraq without these Guard and Reserve forces. Many of their units have been redeployed multiple times in violation of the agreements Guard members sign when they enlist. We are exhausting not only our regular standing combat troops, we are also exhausting the deployed Guard and Reserve units.
Most important, the National Guard units in Iraq are not in the United States standing post over our nation's security at home. They are not being trained and equipped for this vital mission. If we are in fact at war with terrorism, we are leaving our homeland flanks totally exposed. The Administration and its supporters have excused this dereliction in security with the hollow slogan: We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
This specious argument fails on several counts. The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home. And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify. It is the United States that cannot fight them there using National Guard forces needed to fight them here.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
February 18, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GETTING THE LIES STRAIGHT
George W. Bush and his administration have lied about anything and everything. The latest lie campaign is about the danger Iran presents to the United States. We're getting similar propaganda to what preceded the war against Iraq. But as Frank Rich points out, the administration is losing its "mojo." There are so many lies they can't keep them straight anymore. This column is linked at roziusunbound.blogspot.com:
Maybe the Bush White House can't conduct a war, but no one has ever impugned its ability to lie about its conduct of a war. Now even that well-earned reputation for flawless fictionalizing is coming undone. Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran's role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo.
Surely these guys can do better than this. No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq. Public-relations pandemonium ensued as Tony Snow, the State Department and finally the president tried to revise the story line on the fly. Back when Karl Rove ruled, everyone read verbatim from the same script. Last week's frantic improvisations were vintage Scooter Libby, at best the ur-text for a future perjury trial.
Yet for all the sloppy internal contradictions, the most incriminating indictment of the new White House disinformation campaign is to be found in official assertions made more than a year ago. The press and everyone else seems to have forgotten that the administration has twice sounded the same alarms about Iranian weaponry in Iraq that it did last week.
A LOT MORE DANGEROUS A FEW YEARS AGO
Today's Fresno Bee has a letter from a local Republican operative for whom I have absolutely no respect. Our neofascist was sneering at the Democrats in Congress for allegedly being like the United Nations, and suggested that the Democratic majority would be helpless to act if the United States were attacked again.
I have little doubt that the Democratic majority would act as necessary if that unfortunate event occurred. A Democratic administration and Congress won World War II in less time than we have spent in Iraq. Our neofascist would probably prefer a dictatorship because democracy is sometimes messy and inefficient, but by far the best system of government devised by humans. This article by Paul Kennedy takes us back to a far more dangerous time during the Cold War. Yes, terrorists are bad guys, but by no means the threat we faced with thousands of nuclear missiles poised to land on us. This article is linked at www.latimes.com:
We seem to have forgotten that our right-wing hawks argued passionately for "nuking" communist China during the Korean War and again during the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1954. We also have apparently forgotten — although newly released archival evidence overwhelmingly confirms this — how close we came to a nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Likewise, we've forgotten the shock of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which prompted then-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to ask, "Is this the new Sarajevo?" a reference to the outbreak of World War I. And who still remembers 1984-85, when we were riveted by Jonathan Schell's argument in the New Yorker that even a few nuclear explosions would trigger such dust storms as to produce a "nuclear winter"?
Those were really scary times, and much more dangerous than our present circumstance because the potential damage that could be inflicted during an East-West conflagration was far, far greater than anything that Al Qaeda can do to us now. No one has the exact totals, but we probably had 20,000 missiles pointed at each other, often on high alert. And the threat of an accidental discharge was high.
None of today's college-age students were born in 1945, 1979 or maybe even 1984. None lived with those triangular signs proclaiming their schools to be nuclear bomb shelters.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GETTING THE LIES STRAIGHT
George W. Bush and his administration have lied about anything and everything. The latest lie campaign is about the danger Iran presents to the United States. We're getting similar propaganda to what preceded the war against Iraq. But as Frank Rich points out, the administration is losing its "mojo." There are so many lies they can't keep them straight anymore. This column is linked at roziusunbound.blogspot.com:
Maybe the Bush White House can't conduct a war, but no one has ever impugned its ability to lie about its conduct of a war. Now even that well-earned reputation for flawless fictionalizing is coming undone. Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran's role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo.
Surely these guys can do better than this. No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq. Public-relations pandemonium ensued as Tony Snow, the State Department and finally the president tried to revise the story line on the fly. Back when Karl Rove ruled, everyone read verbatim from the same script. Last week's frantic improvisations were vintage Scooter Libby, at best the ur-text for a future perjury trial.
Yet for all the sloppy internal contradictions, the most incriminating indictment of the new White House disinformation campaign is to be found in official assertions made more than a year ago. The press and everyone else seems to have forgotten that the administration has twice sounded the same alarms about Iranian weaponry in Iraq that it did last week.
A LOT MORE DANGEROUS A FEW YEARS AGO
Today's Fresno Bee has a letter from a local Republican operative for whom I have absolutely no respect. Our neofascist was sneering at the Democrats in Congress for allegedly being like the United Nations, and suggested that the Democratic majority would be helpless to act if the United States were attacked again.
I have little doubt that the Democratic majority would act as necessary if that unfortunate event occurred. A Democratic administration and Congress won World War II in less time than we have spent in Iraq. Our neofascist would probably prefer a dictatorship because democracy is sometimes messy and inefficient, but by far the best system of government devised by humans. This article by Paul Kennedy takes us back to a far more dangerous time during the Cold War. Yes, terrorists are bad guys, but by no means the threat we faced with thousands of nuclear missiles poised to land on us. This article is linked at www.latimes.com:
We seem to have forgotten that our right-wing hawks argued passionately for "nuking" communist China during the Korean War and again during the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1954. We also have apparently forgotten — although newly released archival evidence overwhelmingly confirms this — how close we came to a nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Likewise, we've forgotten the shock of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which prompted then-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to ask, "Is this the new Sarajevo?" a reference to the outbreak of World War I. And who still remembers 1984-85, when we were riveted by Jonathan Schell's argument in the New Yorker that even a few nuclear explosions would trigger such dust storms as to produce a "nuclear winter"?
Those were really scary times, and much more dangerous than our present circumstance because the potential damage that could be inflicted during an East-West conflagration was far, far greater than anything that Al Qaeda can do to us now. No one has the exact totals, but we probably had 20,000 missiles pointed at each other, often on high alert. And the threat of an accidental discharge was high.
None of today's college-age students were born in 1945, 1979 or maybe even 1984. None lived with those triangular signs proclaiming their schools to be nuclear bomb shelters.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
February 17, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CONVENIENCE SOCIETY
All of us hate inconvenience. I don't like standing in lines or waiting in traffic jams. I don't like being put on hold forever. But on issues like war and peace, on preserving our democracy, we can't let inconvenience keep us from fighting for what is right. That's the point of this article by Linda Milazzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In this world, more specifically in this nation, where convenience is highly prized, inconvenience is the enemy. It's a sign of failure. The cornerstone of this capitalist society is the acquisition of enough wealth and power to hand all inconvenience over to someone else. The gardener. The housekeeper. The nanny. Perhaps the driver. Maybe the chef.
After decades of creature comforts, heated/air-conditioned homes, luxury cars, comfy couches, big screen TVs, filled to capacity refrigerators, and home delivered food.
After lifetimes of basic freedoms, ordained law and order, secured and protected futures, abundant entertainment, free primary and secondary education, vacation resorts and retirement oases.
After generations of overindulged children whose only inconvenience was homework and cleaning their room, Americans have become passive observers. Unmotivated, inconsequential citizens suffering severely for not being involved. Endless war, world disdain, an ever growing military industrial complex, and increasingly diminished personal rights are just a semblance of the price they have paid.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CONVENIENCE SOCIETY
All of us hate inconvenience. I don't like standing in lines or waiting in traffic jams. I don't like being put on hold forever. But on issues like war and peace, on preserving our democracy, we can't let inconvenience keep us from fighting for what is right. That's the point of this article by Linda Milazzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In this world, more specifically in this nation, where convenience is highly prized, inconvenience is the enemy. It's a sign of failure. The cornerstone of this capitalist society is the acquisition of enough wealth and power to hand all inconvenience over to someone else. The gardener. The housekeeper. The nanny. Perhaps the driver. Maybe the chef.
After decades of creature comforts, heated/air-conditioned homes, luxury cars, comfy couches, big screen TVs, filled to capacity refrigerators, and home delivered food.
After lifetimes of basic freedoms, ordained law and order, secured and protected futures, abundant entertainment, free primary and secondary education, vacation resorts and retirement oases.
After generations of overindulged children whose only inconvenience was homework and cleaning their room, Americans have become passive observers. Unmotivated, inconsequential citizens suffering severely for not being involved. Endless war, world disdain, an ever growing military industrial complex, and increasingly diminished personal rights are just a semblance of the price they have paid.
Friday, February 16, 2007
February 16, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
"AMERICA HATER"
If you don't buy into the demented "logic" of right-wingers, you're an "America hater." If you detest the policies of George W. Bush, it's not because you hate the policies; it's because you hate Bush. That's the recurrent theme in letters to the editor in The Fresno Bee from the right-wingers in the Central Valley. Today's letter was about global climate change, which our man doesn't believe is real, of course. You see, someone gave him a book years ago predicting bad things by the 1990's. Didn't happen, he said, so that proves you don't have to worry now. He didn't cite the scientific credentials of the author, or the specific predictions. Probably just an oversight.
What is truly amazing is how these cretins think the effort to stop global warming is a diabolical plot against the United States. This guy said the United States had done a lot to improve the environment. The Bush administration didn't even agree to the Kyoto accords. Bush and company keep subverting the legitimate science that proves global warming. The oil companies buy off people who could tell us the truth and effect policy changes so we'll keep using their oil.
Even if you could dismiss global climate change, oil is a finite resource. It's going to run out. It's prudent to look for alternative energy sources now. Oil was the energy of the industrial age. We are leaving the industrial age for something new. The people who claim that global climate change isn't a concern are the same people who once claimed the earth is flat. They are the same people who believed demons caused people to get sick. They should be given their meds and put in a safe place where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.
EVEN EXXON-MOBIL ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING
I wonder if the wingnut I mentioned above will read the story about Exxon-Mobil's chairman admitting that global warming is a reality. Rex Tillerson said "there is no question" that the world is getting warmer. I wonder if Mr. Tillerson is an America hater. This story by Dan Piller is at www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16689019.htm:
Exxon Mobil Chairman Rex Tillerson told a world energy conference today that "there is no question that the world's climate is getting warmer," and said that technological advances and a global strategy will be needed to combat the rise in carbon emissions.
"It is foolish for individual countries to engage in their own actions because it won't do much more than make them feel good," Tillerson said. "It is particularly important for the emerging economies of the Pacific Rim, where the biggest increases in carbon emissions will occur, to take part in the discussions."
Tillerson's remarks, to the annual Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference, marked a continuation of Exxon Mobil's growing strategy to make itself part of the global climate debate rather than denying that the problem exists. More than 2,000 people from 44 countries are attending the CERA conference.
Tillerson also said Exxon doesn't feel threatened by the rising interest in alternative or renewable energy.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
"AMERICA HATER"
If you don't buy into the demented "logic" of right-wingers, you're an "America hater." If you detest the policies of George W. Bush, it's not because you hate the policies; it's because you hate Bush. That's the recurrent theme in letters to the editor in The Fresno Bee from the right-wingers in the Central Valley. Today's letter was about global climate change, which our man doesn't believe is real, of course. You see, someone gave him a book years ago predicting bad things by the 1990's. Didn't happen, he said, so that proves you don't have to worry now. He didn't cite the scientific credentials of the author, or the specific predictions. Probably just an oversight.
What is truly amazing is how these cretins think the effort to stop global warming is a diabolical plot against the United States. This guy said the United States had done a lot to improve the environment. The Bush administration didn't even agree to the Kyoto accords. Bush and company keep subverting the legitimate science that proves global warming. The oil companies buy off people who could tell us the truth and effect policy changes so we'll keep using their oil.
Even if you could dismiss global climate change, oil is a finite resource. It's going to run out. It's prudent to look for alternative energy sources now. Oil was the energy of the industrial age. We are leaving the industrial age for something new. The people who claim that global climate change isn't a concern are the same people who once claimed the earth is flat. They are the same people who believed demons caused people to get sick. They should be given their meds and put in a safe place where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.
EVEN EXXON-MOBIL ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING
I wonder if the wingnut I mentioned above will read the story about Exxon-Mobil's chairman admitting that global warming is a reality. Rex Tillerson said "there is no question" that the world is getting warmer. I wonder if Mr. Tillerson is an America hater. This story by Dan Piller is at www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16689019.htm:
Exxon Mobil Chairman Rex Tillerson told a world energy conference today that "there is no question that the world's climate is getting warmer," and said that technological advances and a global strategy will be needed to combat the rise in carbon emissions.
"It is foolish for individual countries to engage in their own actions because it won't do much more than make them feel good," Tillerson said. "It is particularly important for the emerging economies of the Pacific Rim, where the biggest increases in carbon emissions will occur, to take part in the discussions."
Tillerson's remarks, to the annual Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference, marked a continuation of Exxon Mobil's growing strategy to make itself part of the global climate debate rather than denying that the problem exists. More than 2,000 people from 44 countries are attending the CERA conference.
Tillerson also said Exxon doesn't feel threatened by the rising interest in alternative or renewable energy.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
February 15, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WINGNUTS ON PARADE
Today's Fresno Bee had the predictable right-wing meme attacking Speaker Nancy Pelosi for wanting a big airplane, even though the story has already been debunked. I'm surprised these people can even write a letter (maybe it's in crayon) because they don't inform themselves before they shoot their mouths off. They listen to Limbaugh or Hannity and take that for gospel.
We've also had some defenders of Exxon-Mobil and other oil giants responding to the oil companies' obscene profits. One guy ranted that the government "steals" our money. Never mind all the services the government provides like roads, police, fire protection, clean water, safe drugs, and on and on. Another guy said that Exxon-Mobil was a well-managed company with high productivity. Exxon-Mobil is a huge beneficiary of government. Who is it who supplies the military to procure or protect those far-flung oil fields? Right-wingers don't care about the poor or working people, but they work themselves into hysterics to defend big business.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WINGNUTS ON PARADE
Today's Fresno Bee had the predictable right-wing meme attacking Speaker Nancy Pelosi for wanting a big airplane, even though the story has already been debunked. I'm surprised these people can even write a letter (maybe it's in crayon) because they don't inform themselves before they shoot their mouths off. They listen to Limbaugh or Hannity and take that for gospel.
We've also had some defenders of Exxon-Mobil and other oil giants responding to the oil companies' obscene profits. One guy ranted that the government "steals" our money. Never mind all the services the government provides like roads, police, fire protection, clean water, safe drugs, and on and on. Another guy said that Exxon-Mobil was a well-managed company with high productivity. Exxon-Mobil is a huge beneficiary of government. Who is it who supplies the military to procure or protect those far-flung oil fields? Right-wingers don't care about the poor or working people, but they work themselves into hysterics to defend big business.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
February 14, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CHANGING DEFINITION OF SPACE
For the first time in human history more people live in cities than live in rural areas. Tokyo has 31 million people and Seoul has 23 million residents. The author points out that there are places now where people are "stacked on top" of each other. You have one level with middle class people and another level with the poor. It's sobering to think about humans crowded into such small spaces. The article by Andrew Lan is at www.thenation.com:
For the first time in human history there are more people living in urban areas than rural, and cities have grown like amoeba into megacities--so crowded that they have become virtual countries with complex ecosystems unto themselves. Tokyo leads the pack with 31 million residents. Seoul has 23 million, followed by New York and Bombay.
Living space, unless one belongs to that tiny percentage called the upper class, is shrinking as the human population continues to grow. While the rural poor leave open sky and rolling plains to flock to the edge of the metropolis--they crowd into ramshackle slums in the third world, or one-room units in the first--the middle class is clinging to its precious status by contending with far smaller living spaces than those of previous generations.
I remember when a middle-class family could own a Victorian home in San Francisco. Now such a home would be divided into three or four units, each remodeled and sold to an upper middle-class couple.
COLONIAS
It's difficult to talk about illegal immigration without sounding racist. But there are major consequences to population growth in countries like Mexico. There is also the wrenching reality of human misery being created by people living in communities without even basic sanitation. This article talks about the so-called "colonias," Third-world like communities that are sprouting up around the edges of American cities due to illegal immigration. The article by Frosty Wooldridge is at www.opednews.com:
Educational experts estimate over 30 million people in American suffer functional illiteracy. They can't read, write or perform simple math. They offer no skills other than the labor of their hands.
Twenty million illegal aliens residing in America make up the largest high school drop out population in the history of the nation.
Over half of all black and Hispanic babies originate from unmarried mothers that lack high school diplomas. Fifty to 70 percent of blacks and Hispanics do not graduate from high school. Thirty percent of whites do not graduate from high school.
In the last century, Mexico grew from 50 to 104 million people. Current demographic figures show Mexico growing to 300 million in the 21st century. Since 85 percent of all immigration into the United States originates from Mexico, we face a striking dilemma.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CHANGING DEFINITION OF SPACE
For the first time in human history more people live in cities than live in rural areas. Tokyo has 31 million people and Seoul has 23 million residents. The author points out that there are places now where people are "stacked on top" of each other. You have one level with middle class people and another level with the poor. It's sobering to think about humans crowded into such small spaces. The article by Andrew Lan is at www.thenation.com:
For the first time in human history there are more people living in urban areas than rural, and cities have grown like amoeba into megacities--so crowded that they have become virtual countries with complex ecosystems unto themselves. Tokyo leads the pack with 31 million residents. Seoul has 23 million, followed by New York and Bombay.
Living space, unless one belongs to that tiny percentage called the upper class, is shrinking as the human population continues to grow. While the rural poor leave open sky and rolling plains to flock to the edge of the metropolis--they crowd into ramshackle slums in the third world, or one-room units in the first--the middle class is clinging to its precious status by contending with far smaller living spaces than those of previous generations.
I remember when a middle-class family could own a Victorian home in San Francisco. Now such a home would be divided into three or four units, each remodeled and sold to an upper middle-class couple.
COLONIAS
It's difficult to talk about illegal immigration without sounding racist. But there are major consequences to population growth in countries like Mexico. There is also the wrenching reality of human misery being created by people living in communities without even basic sanitation. This article talks about the so-called "colonias," Third-world like communities that are sprouting up around the edges of American cities due to illegal immigration. The article by Frosty Wooldridge is at www.opednews.com:
Educational experts estimate over 30 million people in American suffer functional illiteracy. They can't read, write or perform simple math. They offer no skills other than the labor of their hands.
Twenty million illegal aliens residing in America make up the largest high school drop out population in the history of the nation.
Over half of all black and Hispanic babies originate from unmarried mothers that lack high school diplomas. Fifty to 70 percent of blacks and Hispanics do not graduate from high school. Thirty percent of whites do not graduate from high school.
In the last century, Mexico grew from 50 to 104 million people. Current demographic figures show Mexico growing to 300 million in the 21st century. Since 85 percent of all immigration into the United States originates from Mexico, we face a striking dilemma.
Monday, February 12, 2007
February 12, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MINIMUM WAGE GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Every time there is talk of raising the minimum wage there is a great rending of garments by right-wingers. They'll hiss and moan that a minimum wage increase will just destroy small business. It's like the bad banker tying the lovely widow to the railroad tracks. The evidence is that raising the minimum wage actually benefits business. This article by Holly Sklar is at www.commondreams.org:
Minimum wage critics predictably forecast dire consequences with every raise, and are just as predictably wrong. After the last federal minimum wage hikes in 1996 and 1997, the nation experienced dramatically stronger job growth, and lower inflation and poverty rates. States that have raised their minimum wages above $5.15 have had better employment and small business trends than states that have not.
Minimum wage raises aren't put under mattresses -- or offshore tax havens. They are recycled back into the economy.
"Overall most low-wage workers pump every dollar of their paychecks directly into the local economy by spending their money in their neighborhood stores, local pharmacies and corner markets," notes Dan Gardner, commissioner of Labor and Industries for Oregon, which has the nation's second-highest minimum wage at $7.80.
"Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation," says a statement supporting higher minimum wage signed by the CEOs of Costco, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Majority, Eileen Fisher apparel company and more than 500 business owners across the nation -- from the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York and Dixie Rod & Custom in Alabama to the Mercury Cafe in Colorado and Broetje Orchards in Washington. From Candle Enterprises in Minnesota and Vintage Vinyl in Missouri to North Georgia Woodworks and Small Biz Survival in Oklahoma.
BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE
I agree with the author of this article. When Bush says something believe just the opposite. If he says it's white, it's black If he says it's bad, it's good. Bush makes claims about the incredible economy. If you're Exxon-Mobil, it's great. If you're Joe Six Pack, it's not so good. This article by Ed Naha is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In a surreal way, Bush's dazzling American economy does exist. It just doesn't exist for ordinary Americans.
For instance, if my name was "fast" Eddie Exxon, I'd be dancing in the streets right now. Exxon Mobil, last week, revealed that it racked up record earnings in '06, $39.5 billion bucks - the biggest profit an American company has ever made. (The previous record holder was...Exxon Mobil in '05 with $36.13 billion.) Exxon's '06 profit averaged out to about $4.5 million an hour. (Why, some of us have to work, uh, 9.5 million lifetimes to earn that hourly amount before we croak! And that's only if we use public transportation!)
Also rolling in dough with best-ever profits were Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Marathon Oil Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. Suprisingly, Jed Clampett didn't make the cut.
The same week that Exxon revealed its "Happy Days Are Here Again" figures, The Commerce Department reported that the savings rate of Americans for all of '06 was negative 1 percent. Translation? Not only didn't any of us save but we also spent more than we earned. On the plus side, we didn't top the existing negative savings record, 1.5 percent, set in 1933 during The Great Depression.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MINIMUM WAGE GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Every time there is talk of raising the minimum wage there is a great rending of garments by right-wingers. They'll hiss and moan that a minimum wage increase will just destroy small business. It's like the bad banker tying the lovely widow to the railroad tracks. The evidence is that raising the minimum wage actually benefits business. This article by Holly Sklar is at www.commondreams.org:
Minimum wage critics predictably forecast dire consequences with every raise, and are just as predictably wrong. After the last federal minimum wage hikes in 1996 and 1997, the nation experienced dramatically stronger job growth, and lower inflation and poverty rates. States that have raised their minimum wages above $5.15 have had better employment and small business trends than states that have not.
Minimum wage raises aren't put under mattresses -- or offshore tax havens. They are recycled back into the economy.
"Overall most low-wage workers pump every dollar of their paychecks directly into the local economy by spending their money in their neighborhood stores, local pharmacies and corner markets," notes Dan Gardner, commissioner of Labor and Industries for Oregon, which has the nation's second-highest minimum wage at $7.80.
"Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation," says a statement supporting higher minimum wage signed by the CEOs of Costco, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Majority, Eileen Fisher apparel company and more than 500 business owners across the nation -- from the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York and Dixie Rod & Custom in Alabama to the Mercury Cafe in Colorado and Broetje Orchards in Washington. From Candle Enterprises in Minnesota and Vintage Vinyl in Missouri to North Georgia Woodworks and Small Biz Survival in Oklahoma.
BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE
I agree with the author of this article. When Bush says something believe just the opposite. If he says it's white, it's black If he says it's bad, it's good. Bush makes claims about the incredible economy. If you're Exxon-Mobil, it's great. If you're Joe Six Pack, it's not so good. This article by Ed Naha is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In a surreal way, Bush's dazzling American economy does exist. It just doesn't exist for ordinary Americans.
For instance, if my name was "fast" Eddie Exxon, I'd be dancing in the streets right now. Exxon Mobil, last week, revealed that it racked up record earnings in '06, $39.5 billion bucks - the biggest profit an American company has ever made. (The previous record holder was...Exxon Mobil in '05 with $36.13 billion.) Exxon's '06 profit averaged out to about $4.5 million an hour. (Why, some of us have to work, uh, 9.5 million lifetimes to earn that hourly amount before we croak! And that's only if we use public transportation!)
Also rolling in dough with best-ever profits were Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Marathon Oil Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. Suprisingly, Jed Clampett didn't make the cut.
The same week that Exxon revealed its "Happy Days Are Here Again" figures, The Commerce Department reported that the savings rate of Americans for all of '06 was negative 1 percent. Translation? Not only didn't any of us save but we also spent more than we earned. On the plus side, we didn't top the existing negative savings record, 1.5 percent, set in 1933 during The Great Depression.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
February 11, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GLOBALIZATION IS GOOD EXCEPT . . .
The barons of Wall Street love globalization and outsourcing of American jobs except when the same thing is happening to them. Then, suddenly, globalization is not such a good thing after all. Shipping our jobs overseas is morally, fiscally, and strategically wrong in the long run. This article by Chris Hayes is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:
In response to the massive loss of unionzed, relatively well-paid manufacturing jobs in the US, the barons of Wall Street (Bob Rubin, et al) generally respond with thinly veiled contempt for the knee-jerk whining of the protectionst volk. “Don’t you understand?” they say, “this it the global economy and there’s no reason for manufacturers to pay Americans to do the same thing the Chinese can do for 1/50th the price. Besides, what are you a racist? Don’t you believe that Mexicans and Indians and Chinese should have jobs?” I’m paraphrasing here, obviously, but this is pretty standard.
So there’s something deliciously ironic about listening to Wall Street bitch and moan about the fact that Wall Street is losing share of the international financial markets. So grave is the threat of New York losing its prime position, that in January Mayor Mike Bloomberg (along with Chuck Schumer) called a press conference to publicize a report issued by McKinsey consulting (which obviously has no conflict of interest in this sort of thing) that argues that in order to preserve Wall Street’s pre-eminence we must do away with—you guessed it—excess regulation, namely Sarbanes-Oxley.
TIME TO PAY ATTENTION TO CREDIT SQUEEZE
Sometimes I don't know how you can have a conscience and be an executive for a big bank that issues credit cards or makes real estate loans with ticking time bombs for the borrowers. More covertly, big banks have even been involved in payday loan companies that make loan sharks look moral. It's time for some accountability for banks and lenders. Take away the fine print. Limit what lenders can charge for late charges and other fees. Take away universal default provisions. Rescind the onerous bankruptcy bill the Bush administration pushed. This article by Danny Schechter is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Journalism like this feels sorrier for the banks than the working people who took out so-called "sub prime loans" with higher interest rates to improve their standard of living and ended up losing everything.
Why? Because of unexamined structural economic inequality, out-sourced jobs, tax cuts for the rich, the fraying of the social safety net etc, etc. Americans are losing their homes in droves as foreclosures mount and banks like HSBC are left holding the bag. The plight of the people doesn't get the attention that the problems of the banks do. Their plight is rarely page one. In fact it's the opposite with TV shows like 20/20--which I once worked for--now blaming debtors for mounting debt, i.e. blaming victims for the crime.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GLOBALIZATION IS GOOD EXCEPT . . .
The barons of Wall Street love globalization and outsourcing of American jobs except when the same thing is happening to them. Then, suddenly, globalization is not such a good thing after all. Shipping our jobs overseas is morally, fiscally, and strategically wrong in the long run. This article by Chris Hayes is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:
In response to the massive loss of unionzed, relatively well-paid manufacturing jobs in the US, the barons of Wall Street (Bob Rubin, et al) generally respond with thinly veiled contempt for the knee-jerk whining of the protectionst volk. “Don’t you understand?” they say, “this it the global economy and there’s no reason for manufacturers to pay Americans to do the same thing the Chinese can do for 1/50th the price. Besides, what are you a racist? Don’t you believe that Mexicans and Indians and Chinese should have jobs?” I’m paraphrasing here, obviously, but this is pretty standard.
So there’s something deliciously ironic about listening to Wall Street bitch and moan about the fact that Wall Street is losing share of the international financial markets. So grave is the threat of New York losing its prime position, that in January Mayor Mike Bloomberg (along with Chuck Schumer) called a press conference to publicize a report issued by McKinsey consulting (which obviously has no conflict of interest in this sort of thing) that argues that in order to preserve Wall Street’s pre-eminence we must do away with—you guessed it—excess regulation, namely Sarbanes-Oxley.
TIME TO PAY ATTENTION TO CREDIT SQUEEZE
Sometimes I don't know how you can have a conscience and be an executive for a big bank that issues credit cards or makes real estate loans with ticking time bombs for the borrowers. More covertly, big banks have even been involved in payday loan companies that make loan sharks look moral. It's time for some accountability for banks and lenders. Take away the fine print. Limit what lenders can charge for late charges and other fees. Take away universal default provisions. Rescind the onerous bankruptcy bill the Bush administration pushed. This article by Danny Schechter is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Journalism like this feels sorrier for the banks than the working people who took out so-called "sub prime loans" with higher interest rates to improve their standard of living and ended up losing everything.
Why? Because of unexamined structural economic inequality, out-sourced jobs, tax cuts for the rich, the fraying of the social safety net etc, etc. Americans are losing their homes in droves as foreclosures mount and banks like HSBC are left holding the bag. The plight of the people doesn't get the attention that the problems of the banks do. Their plight is rarely page one. In fact it's the opposite with TV shows like 20/20--which I once worked for--now blaming debtors for mounting debt, i.e. blaming victims for the crime.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
February 10, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT-WING HATE
Today's Fresno Bee features a letter from a right-winger aggrieved about "liberal vitriol." The writer was praising a column by reactionary Victor Davis Hanson that criticized Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry had the temerity to criticize U. S. foreign policy. We get the usual homilies from the writer about our being the greatest country, where you're free to pursue your dreams, yada, yada. When the United States lives up to its ideals and respects the Bill of Rights and human rights around the world it is the best country on earth.
But we can not pretend that the U. S. record on human rights is pristine. This was a country founded on slavery and on stealing the land of native Americans. We stole territory from Mexico. Our government has overthrown legitimate governments of other countries and interfered in their affairs.
It's better to face the truth than to adopt the old hear no evil, speak no evil, or see no evil mantra some right-wingers advocate. And, as for vitriol, conservatives have some nerve to criticize when they've constantly attacked people who are different to serve the agenda of right-wingers. Attack gays, attack feminists, attack anyone who doesn't believe in their version of God, attack the poor and working people. So, as the Scripture says, pull the straw from your own eye before you talk about the vitriol of others.
GROSS DISHONESTY
If George W. Bush and his administration are ever honest about anything, it might be a sign of the Apocalypse. This editorial in The Los Angeles Times points out how the administration disguises the true financial costs of the Iraq war. The administration uses "supplementals" to make it appear that the Pentagon budget is much smaller than it really is. If this war is so righteous, such an effort to save western civilization, why can't Bush be honest about the cost? This editorial by Veronique de Rugy is at www.latimes.com:
AT THE SAME TIME that President Bush requested more than $700 billion for the Pentagon budget this week, he managed to create the impression that he was asking for the much smaller amount of $481 billion. The trick he used — socking about $235 billion into two "emergency supplemental" funding requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — didn't fool the public for very long. But the longer the White House and Congress continue to treat "war-related" funding as a separate item from the budget for the Department of Defense, the harder it will be to control a ballooning federal budget.
Here's how the supplemental shell game works. The official defense budget for 2008 comes to $481 billion. That's a 10% increase over last year and a 62% increase over 2001. And it conveniently fails to include a supplemental request of $141.7 billion, which brings the 2008 defense total to $622.7 billion. On top of that, the president requested a 2007 supplemental in the amount of $93.4 billion, bringing this week's entire defense "budget authority request" to $716 billion (the figure of actual outlays is even higher because it includes billions already committed to the Pentagon).
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT-WING HATE
Today's Fresno Bee features a letter from a right-winger aggrieved about "liberal vitriol." The writer was praising a column by reactionary Victor Davis Hanson that criticized Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry had the temerity to criticize U. S. foreign policy. We get the usual homilies from the writer about our being the greatest country, where you're free to pursue your dreams, yada, yada. When the United States lives up to its ideals and respects the Bill of Rights and human rights around the world it is the best country on earth.
But we can not pretend that the U. S. record on human rights is pristine. This was a country founded on slavery and on stealing the land of native Americans. We stole territory from Mexico. Our government has overthrown legitimate governments of other countries and interfered in their affairs.
It's better to face the truth than to adopt the old hear no evil, speak no evil, or see no evil mantra some right-wingers advocate. And, as for vitriol, conservatives have some nerve to criticize when they've constantly attacked people who are different to serve the agenda of right-wingers. Attack gays, attack feminists, attack anyone who doesn't believe in their version of God, attack the poor and working people. So, as the Scripture says, pull the straw from your own eye before you talk about the vitriol of others.
GROSS DISHONESTY
If George W. Bush and his administration are ever honest about anything, it might be a sign of the Apocalypse. This editorial in The Los Angeles Times points out how the administration disguises the true financial costs of the Iraq war. The administration uses "supplementals" to make it appear that the Pentagon budget is much smaller than it really is. If this war is so righteous, such an effort to save western civilization, why can't Bush be honest about the cost? This editorial by Veronique de Rugy is at www.latimes.com:
AT THE SAME TIME that President Bush requested more than $700 billion for the Pentagon budget this week, he managed to create the impression that he was asking for the much smaller amount of $481 billion. The trick he used — socking about $235 billion into two "emergency supplemental" funding requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — didn't fool the public for very long. But the longer the White House and Congress continue to treat "war-related" funding as a separate item from the budget for the Department of Defense, the harder it will be to control a ballooning federal budget.
Here's how the supplemental shell game works. The official defense budget for 2008 comes to $481 billion. That's a 10% increase over last year and a 62% increase over 2001. And it conveniently fails to include a supplemental request of $141.7 billion, which brings the 2008 defense total to $622.7 billion. On top of that, the president requested a 2007 supplemental in the amount of $93.4 billion, bringing this week's entire defense "budget authority request" to $716 billion (the figure of actual outlays is even higher because it includes billions already committed to the Pentagon).
Friday, February 09, 2007
February 09, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT-WING HOT BUTTONS
Right-wing politicians, right-wing think tanks, right-wing media, and the Far Right in the religious world have been skilled at hitting certain psychological hot buttons to insure electoral success. Fear has been a major tool the past few years. People like George W. Bush like to make us feel vulnerable and believe that only he, the Leader, can protect us from the evil people in the world. Bigotry against gays and against racial and ethnic minorities has been used by Republicans for decades. Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" was based on anger about integration in the south. Former Governor Pete Wilson in California used bigotry against Mexican immigrants to achieve his political goals. This article by Roy Eidelson is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
My work as a psychologist suggests that five core concerns--about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness--pervade the worlds of individuals, organizations, communities, and nations. First, concerns over personal and collective vulnerability are central to our lives. For most of us, nothing is more immediate than the desire to protect the people and things we care about, including ourselves. Second, we are also strongly affected by perceptions of injustice, both in our personal lives and in our group attachments. We often react to perceived mistreatment with a combination of anger and resentment, and an urge to right wrongs and punish those we hold responsible. The third concern is distrust. We tend to divide the world into those who are trustworthy and those unworthy of our trust. If our judgments are accurate, we can select our associates and allies wisely, and we can avoid harm from those who have hostile intent or are merely unreliable. Fourth is the pursuit of superiority. We regularly compare ourselves to other individuals and groups, and prefer to conclude that we're better than they are in some important way--perhaps in our accomplishments, or our morality, or our destiny. Finally, we strive to avoid the experience of helplessness, and instead do our best to control the important events in our lives. When we're overcome by despair and resignation we usually fail to achieve our goals.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT-WING HOT BUTTONS
Right-wing politicians, right-wing think tanks, right-wing media, and the Far Right in the religious world have been skilled at hitting certain psychological hot buttons to insure electoral success. Fear has been a major tool the past few years. People like George W. Bush like to make us feel vulnerable and believe that only he, the Leader, can protect us from the evil people in the world. Bigotry against gays and against racial and ethnic minorities has been used by Republicans for decades. Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" was based on anger about integration in the south. Former Governor Pete Wilson in California used bigotry against Mexican immigrants to achieve his political goals. This article by Roy Eidelson is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
My work as a psychologist suggests that five core concerns--about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness--pervade the worlds of individuals, organizations, communities, and nations. First, concerns over personal and collective vulnerability are central to our lives. For most of us, nothing is more immediate than the desire to protect the people and things we care about, including ourselves. Second, we are also strongly affected by perceptions of injustice, both in our personal lives and in our group attachments. We often react to perceived mistreatment with a combination of anger and resentment, and an urge to right wrongs and punish those we hold responsible. The third concern is distrust. We tend to divide the world into those who are trustworthy and those unworthy of our trust. If our judgments are accurate, we can select our associates and allies wisely, and we can avoid harm from those who have hostile intent or are merely unreliable. Fourth is the pursuit of superiority. We regularly compare ourselves to other individuals and groups, and prefer to conclude that we're better than they are in some important way--perhaps in our accomplishments, or our morality, or our destiny. Finally, we strive to avoid the experience of helplessness, and instead do our best to control the important events in our lives. When we're overcome by despair and resignation we usually fail to achieve our goals.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
February 08, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PLAYING INTO BIN LADEN'S HANDS
Osama bin Laden couldn't have asked for a better administration than that of George W. Bush to help bin Laden achieve his objectives. Bin Laden's planned attack on 9/11 was designed to provoke the United States into an irrational and costly response. Instead of treating the attacks as a criminal matter and enlisting the help of law enforcement agencies around the world, Bush decided to make it a war. Even worse, he used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. The war in Iraq has cost the United States credibility around the world. Iraq has been a perfect recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. And the war is sucking the United States dry. This article by Adam Elkus is at www.alternet.org:
According to Atwan's analysis of al-Qaida's "20-year plan," the organization aimed to bring about the fall of the American empire by first provoking -- with the September 11 attacks -- Washington into irrationally invading Muslim lands in pursuit of revenge. Al-Qaida's grand strategists calculated that the invasion would propel the umma, the Muslim community, into joining the jihad. Following the fall of the secular socialist Hussein regime, Iraq has indeed become a training ground for limitless waves of foreign jihadis.
In this context, George W. Bush was a great boon to their efforts. Not only did he invade Iraq, which did not have a thing to do with 9/11, but he did almost everything possible to isolate America from its allies. This policy gave bin Laden ample room to target unpopular pro-American regimes from Madrid to Riyadh. Compared to the Southwest Asian battleground of Afghanistan, Iraq is a more congenial base for al-Qaida, since the language, culture, and terrain are more familiar to most Arabs. The jihadis' strategy is to get America to throw all of its resources into fighting a losing battle against Iraq's lethal patchwork of warring factions.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PLAYING INTO BIN LADEN'S HANDS
Osama bin Laden couldn't have asked for a better administration than that of George W. Bush to help bin Laden achieve his objectives. Bin Laden's planned attack on 9/11 was designed to provoke the United States into an irrational and costly response. Instead of treating the attacks as a criminal matter and enlisting the help of law enforcement agencies around the world, Bush decided to make it a war. Even worse, he used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. The war in Iraq has cost the United States credibility around the world. Iraq has been a perfect recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. And the war is sucking the United States dry. This article by Adam Elkus is at www.alternet.org:
According to Atwan's analysis of al-Qaida's "20-year plan," the organization aimed to bring about the fall of the American empire by first provoking -- with the September 11 attacks -- Washington into irrationally invading Muslim lands in pursuit of revenge. Al-Qaida's grand strategists calculated that the invasion would propel the umma, the Muslim community, into joining the jihad. Following the fall of the secular socialist Hussein regime, Iraq has indeed become a training ground for limitless waves of foreign jihadis.
In this context, George W. Bush was a great boon to their efforts. Not only did he invade Iraq, which did not have a thing to do with 9/11, but he did almost everything possible to isolate America from its allies. This policy gave bin Laden ample room to target unpopular pro-American regimes from Madrid to Riyadh. Compared to the Southwest Asian battleground of Afghanistan, Iraq is a more congenial base for al-Qaida, since the language, culture, and terrain are more familiar to most Arabs. The jihadis' strategy is to get America to throw all of its resources into fighting a losing battle against Iraq's lethal patchwork of warring factions.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
February 07, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PALLETS OF CASH
George W. Bush and his administration have all the traits of a banana republic. They steal elections. They start unnecessary wars. They transfer wealth to the people at the top and take from the people at the bottom. They are war profiteers. They kidnap and they torture. Now we learn that plane loads--literally--of cash were sent to Iraq. Nobody seems to know where those billions of dollars went. This article by Daniel Schulman is at www.motherjones.com:
While the impetus for the hearing was a point of contention, there was one thing everyone could agree on regardless of their political persuasion: No one — not the committee members or the distinguished panel assembled to testify — had any idea how billions of dollars in reconstruction funds were ultimately spent.
Shipped to Iraq by the ton on C-130 cargo planes laden with bricks of U.S. tender, the funding in question, held in the Development Fund for Iraq and totaling some $8.8 billion, was doled out by the CPA to Iraq’s fledgling government ministries between October 2003 and June 2004. Ostensibly, the cash went to pay for such things as salaries and overhead. Where it actually wound up is another story entirely. A 2005 audit by the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that the "CPA did not exercise adequate responsibility over DFI funds provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process" and sought no "assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for." The report raised the possibility that portions of the funding went to so-called ghost employees (whose only job responsibility would appear to be collecting a paycheck). It noted that though one Iraqi ministry had 8,206 on the payroll, CPA officials could confirm that only 602 of them actually worked there. Today, Waxman raised another, more ominous possibility — that reconstruction funding may have wound up in the hands of insurgents and other militant factions.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PALLETS OF CASH
George W. Bush and his administration have all the traits of a banana republic. They steal elections. They start unnecessary wars. They transfer wealth to the people at the top and take from the people at the bottom. They are war profiteers. They kidnap and they torture. Now we learn that plane loads--literally--of cash were sent to Iraq. Nobody seems to know where those billions of dollars went. This article by Daniel Schulman is at www.motherjones.com:
While the impetus for the hearing was a point of contention, there was one thing everyone could agree on regardless of their political persuasion: No one — not the committee members or the distinguished panel assembled to testify — had any idea how billions of dollars in reconstruction funds were ultimately spent.
Shipped to Iraq by the ton on C-130 cargo planes laden with bricks of U.S. tender, the funding in question, held in the Development Fund for Iraq and totaling some $8.8 billion, was doled out by the CPA to Iraq’s fledgling government ministries between October 2003 and June 2004. Ostensibly, the cash went to pay for such things as salaries and overhead. Where it actually wound up is another story entirely. A 2005 audit by the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that the "CPA did not exercise adequate responsibility over DFI funds provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process" and sought no "assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for." The report raised the possibility that portions of the funding went to so-called ghost employees (whose only job responsibility would appear to be collecting a paycheck). It noted that though one Iraqi ministry had 8,206 on the payroll, CPA officials could confirm that only 602 of them actually worked there. Today, Waxman raised another, more ominous possibility — that reconstruction funding may have wound up in the hands of insurgents and other militant factions.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
February 06, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WORSE THAN VIETNAM
Financial expenditures for the debacle in Iraq will soon exceed what we spent in another debacle in Vietnam. The war in Iraq has already gone longer than the Second World War against the Axis powers. And where are we? Iraq is the world's greatest recruiting ground for terrorists. It's the greatest training terrorists could ask for. To pay for this disaster Bush is slashing health care spending for the elderly and for the poor. Just how is this guy "pro-life"? This article by Ewen MacAskill is at www.commondreams.org:
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.
The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
Mr Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."
Although Democrats control Congress and have promised careful scrutiny of the budget over the next few months, Mr Bush has left in them in a bind, unwilling to withhold funds for US troops on the frontline. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the days when Mr Bush could expect a blank cheque for the wars were over but she also insisted the Democrats would not deny troops the money they needed. Democrats could block Mr Bush's proposed cuts to 141 domestic programmes.
MOLLY IVINS ON BUSH'S ARROGANCE
Molly Ivins tried to warn the country about George W. Bush. While the major media fawned over the aw-shucks good 'ol boy ways of Bush Molly talked about his sense of entitlement because he was born rich and about his lousy record as Governor of Texas. This column by Bill Gallagher is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Ivins had Bush's number way ahead of the pack. If only the nation had listened. She was especially tuned in to his machismo.
She presciently wrote in her 1999 book with Lou Dubose "Shrub:The Short and Happy Political Life of George W. Bush" about his cowboy arrogance: "For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard-ass -- at a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy. But it's also a common Texas male trait. Someone should probably worry how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein, but that's beyond the scope of this book."
Ivins richly merits her rest in paradise. The rest of us must worry about the hell we're in, and the madman she warned us of and what he might do next.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WORSE THAN VIETNAM
Financial expenditures for the debacle in Iraq will soon exceed what we spent in another debacle in Vietnam. The war in Iraq has already gone longer than the Second World War against the Axis powers. And where are we? Iraq is the world's greatest recruiting ground for terrorists. It's the greatest training terrorists could ask for. To pay for this disaster Bush is slashing health care spending for the elderly and for the poor. Just how is this guy "pro-life"? This article by Ewen MacAskill is at www.commondreams.org:
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.
The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
Mr Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."
Although Democrats control Congress and have promised careful scrutiny of the budget over the next few months, Mr Bush has left in them in a bind, unwilling to withhold funds for US troops on the frontline. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the days when Mr Bush could expect a blank cheque for the wars were over but she also insisted the Democrats would not deny troops the money they needed. Democrats could block Mr Bush's proposed cuts to 141 domestic programmes.
MOLLY IVINS ON BUSH'S ARROGANCE
Molly Ivins tried to warn the country about George W. Bush. While the major media fawned over the aw-shucks good 'ol boy ways of Bush Molly talked about his sense of entitlement because he was born rich and about his lousy record as Governor of Texas. This column by Bill Gallagher is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Ivins had Bush's number way ahead of the pack. If only the nation had listened. She was especially tuned in to his machismo.
She presciently wrote in her 1999 book with Lou Dubose "Shrub:The Short and Happy Political Life of George W. Bush" about his cowboy arrogance: "For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard-ass -- at a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy. But it's also a common Texas male trait. Someone should probably worry how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein, but that's beyond the scope of this book."
Ivins richly merits her rest in paradise. The rest of us must worry about the hell we're in, and the madman she warned us of and what he might do next.
Monday, February 05, 2007
February 05, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S SPOILS SYSTEM
If you needed surgery, how comfortable with you be with the job being "outsourced" to someone who was loyal to the hospital administrator, but not necessarily good at surgery? That's in essence what this reactionary administration has been doing. The Heritage Foundation, one of the major right-wing think tanks, advocated outsourcing services formerly performed by career civil servants to private contractors. It's part of that old right-wing mantra that the private sector does everything better than government. Hurricane Katrina was devastating proof that the government is better run by government professionals. Bush and company have been reverting to the corrupt and inefficient spoils system that existed before civil servants became professionals based on competence, not on political loyalty. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.com:
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence over know-how: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
SEEKING THE COMMON GOOD
Right-wing philosophy, if you want to call it that, is really about dog eat dog self-interest. Right-wingers believe in what this writer calls "market fundamentalism," the belief that private markets always do everything better than government. It's this illogical belief in individualism and free markets that is impeding our progress in so many important areas. This article by Ruth Rosen is at www.tompaine.com:
Put it this way: What do catastrophic climate change, the widening gulf between the wealthy and the poor, America's obesity epidemic, and our society's lack of care for the young and the elderly have in common? Each has powerful special interests who insist that we need to let the market work its private magic and that government action would create more problems than it would solve.
These interest groups also block any effort to enlist the government by invoking the arguments of market fundamentalism: Privatize everything, rely on yourself and expect nothing from your government.
Market fundamentalism has become like the air we breathe; we hardly notice it. Every time George W. Bush argues for more tax cuts, he relies on the unquestioned assumption that we all embrace market fundamentalism. Like religious fundamentalism, it is based more on faith than on reason. Through constant repetition, however, the American public has been bullied into believing that private spending is rational and efficient, while public spending is always wasteful and unproductive. (Tell that to people in New Orleans.)
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S SPOILS SYSTEM
If you needed surgery, how comfortable with you be with the job being "outsourced" to someone who was loyal to the hospital administrator, but not necessarily good at surgery? That's in essence what this reactionary administration has been doing. The Heritage Foundation, one of the major right-wing think tanks, advocated outsourcing services formerly performed by career civil servants to private contractors. It's part of that old right-wing mantra that the private sector does everything better than government. Hurricane Katrina was devastating proof that the government is better run by government professionals. Bush and company have been reverting to the corrupt and inefficient spoils system that existed before civil servants became professionals based on competence, not on political loyalty. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.com:
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence over know-how: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
SEEKING THE COMMON GOOD
Right-wing philosophy, if you want to call it that, is really about dog eat dog self-interest. Right-wingers believe in what this writer calls "market fundamentalism," the belief that private markets always do everything better than government. It's this illogical belief in individualism and free markets that is impeding our progress in so many important areas. This article by Ruth Rosen is at www.tompaine.com:
Put it this way: What do catastrophic climate change, the widening gulf between the wealthy and the poor, America's obesity epidemic, and our society's lack of care for the young and the elderly have in common? Each has powerful special interests who insist that we need to let the market work its private magic and that government action would create more problems than it would solve.
These interest groups also block any effort to enlist the government by invoking the arguments of market fundamentalism: Privatize everything, rely on yourself and expect nothing from your government.
Market fundamentalism has become like the air we breathe; we hardly notice it. Every time George W. Bush argues for more tax cuts, he relies on the unquestioned assumption that we all embrace market fundamentalism. Like religious fundamentalism, it is based more on faith than on reason. Through constant repetition, however, the American public has been bullied into believing that private spending is rational and efficient, while public spending is always wasteful and unproductive. (Tell that to people in New Orleans.)
Sunday, February 04, 2007
February 04, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE TRUE BUSH ECONOMY
Early in the Bush administration I got downsized from a job where I was actually, finally, starting to make a semi-decent salary. I had to take a job that paid $2.00 an hour less than what I was making. I haven't made it back to where I was five years ago. My situation is fairly typical for working class people in this country. The trickle down policies of George W. Bush have taken a vastly unequal economic system and made it worse. In right-wing country the only people who count are the very rich. The rest of us are there to be squeezed like an orange until all the juice is gone and we can be tossed into the trash. This commentary by Bernie Sanders talks about an economy for the working and middle class of this country. The article is at www.motherjones.com:
The president still believes that the economy is booming as a result of his tax breaks. But the president fails to note that since he has been in office, 5.4 million middle class Americans have slipped into poverty, 6.8 million Americans have lost their health insurance, median income for working-age families has declined for five consecutive years, and 3 million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. At the same time, the costs of education, prescription drugs, energy, and housing have risen dramatically.
Meanwhile, the wealthy have never had it so good. The richest 13,000 households earn nearly as much income as the bottom 20 million and the top one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
In terms of our federal budget priorities there is one key question which must be asked. Which side are we on: the rich and the powerful or the middle class and working families?
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE TRUE BUSH ECONOMY
Early in the Bush administration I got downsized from a job where I was actually, finally, starting to make a semi-decent salary. I had to take a job that paid $2.00 an hour less than what I was making. I haven't made it back to where I was five years ago. My situation is fairly typical for working class people in this country. The trickle down policies of George W. Bush have taken a vastly unequal economic system and made it worse. In right-wing country the only people who count are the very rich. The rest of us are there to be squeezed like an orange until all the juice is gone and we can be tossed into the trash. This commentary by Bernie Sanders talks about an economy for the working and middle class of this country. The article is at www.motherjones.com:
The president still believes that the economy is booming as a result of his tax breaks. But the president fails to note that since he has been in office, 5.4 million middle class Americans have slipped into poverty, 6.8 million Americans have lost their health insurance, median income for working-age families has declined for five consecutive years, and 3 million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. At the same time, the costs of education, prescription drugs, energy, and housing have risen dramatically.
Meanwhile, the wealthy have never had it so good. The richest 13,000 households earn nearly as much income as the bottom 20 million and the top one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
In terms of our federal budget priorities there is one key question which must be asked. Which side are we on: the rich and the powerful or the middle class and working families?
Saturday, February 03, 2007
February 03, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE IT
What do you get if you combine hubris, stubbornness, and incompetence? You get George W. Bush, of course, with his sidekick Dick Cheney. A new National Intelligence Estimate shows that now there is not one, but four, civil wars going on in Iraq. Bush was warned by a number of people of the dangers of occupying Iraq. He never had to attack Iraq in the first place, but PNAC thought it would be a swell idea to take over Iraq, install a puppet "democracy," and control the oil. Now Bush has opened the gates of hell. This column by Maureen Dowd is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.com:
Even after releasing parts of an intelligence report so pessimistic that it may as well have been titled “Iraq: We’re Cooked,” Bush officials clung to their alternate reality, using nonsensical logic and cherry-picking whatever phrases they could find in the report that they could use to sell the Surge.
In the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, civil war was a worst-case scenario. In the 2007 one, Iraq has zoomed past civil war to hell: “The Intelligence Community judges that the term ‘civil war’ does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.”
As John McLaughlin, the former acting director of central intelligence, told The Times’s Mark Mazzetti: “Civil war is checkers. This is chess.”
Far from Dick Cheney’s claim of “enormous successes” and Gen. William Casey’s claim of “slow progress,” the report shows that any path the U.S. takes in Iraq could lead to a river of blood. It says that in the absence of any strong Sunni and Shiite leaders who can control their groups, prospects are dim for a cohesive government, much less a democracy.
WAR A MEANS TO DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS
The United States spends far more on the military than any other country in the world. We neglect pressing needs at home such as health care, education, environmental cleanup, job training, and housing so we can burn money on military expenditures. There were various motivations for attacking Iraq, and for the continuing "war on terror," but the war effectively drains off money that could better life for the working people of this country. Right-wingers don't care about us. They want cheap labor and things like Social Security, pensions, and benefits get in the way of their profits. This article by Margie Burns is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
There is no parallel between the “war on terror” and America’s effort in World War II, and Churchillian posturing by this White House should be viewed with enlightened skepticism. If they really wanted to guide adolescent males around the globe into nonviolent, constructive action rather than into terrorism, they would pursue policies congruent with that objective.
They would also have taken sensible steps at home to safeguard our chemical sector and nuclear industry, borders and ports, steps not taken to this day.
I have now had six years to observe the Bush team (I certainly never took them seriously, except for the harms done, when they were back in Texas), and my working hypothesis is that, when you’re looking at the Bush team, you have to think simple and crude. The real desideratum of this administration is basically to undo decades of twentieth-century shoring up the middle class, meaning loosely 90 percent of the population. The result is cheap labor; the means is global war. The president in his most recent State of the Union address falsely named fighting terrorism – fending off young males who come by various avenues to use guerrilla tactics -- “the defining struggle of our time.”
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE IT
What do you get if you combine hubris, stubbornness, and incompetence? You get George W. Bush, of course, with his sidekick Dick Cheney. A new National Intelligence Estimate shows that now there is not one, but four, civil wars going on in Iraq. Bush was warned by a number of people of the dangers of occupying Iraq. He never had to attack Iraq in the first place, but PNAC thought it would be a swell idea to take over Iraq, install a puppet "democracy," and control the oil. Now Bush has opened the gates of hell. This column by Maureen Dowd is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.com:
Even after releasing parts of an intelligence report so pessimistic that it may as well have been titled “Iraq: We’re Cooked,” Bush officials clung to their alternate reality, using nonsensical logic and cherry-picking whatever phrases they could find in the report that they could use to sell the Surge.
In the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, civil war was a worst-case scenario. In the 2007 one, Iraq has zoomed past civil war to hell: “The Intelligence Community judges that the term ‘civil war’ does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.”
As John McLaughlin, the former acting director of central intelligence, told The Times’s Mark Mazzetti: “Civil war is checkers. This is chess.”
Far from Dick Cheney’s claim of “enormous successes” and Gen. William Casey’s claim of “slow progress,” the report shows that any path the U.S. takes in Iraq could lead to a river of blood. It says that in the absence of any strong Sunni and Shiite leaders who can control their groups, prospects are dim for a cohesive government, much less a democracy.
WAR A MEANS TO DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS
The United States spends far more on the military than any other country in the world. We neglect pressing needs at home such as health care, education, environmental cleanup, job training, and housing so we can burn money on military expenditures. There were various motivations for attacking Iraq, and for the continuing "war on terror," but the war effectively drains off money that could better life for the working people of this country. Right-wingers don't care about us. They want cheap labor and things like Social Security, pensions, and benefits get in the way of their profits. This article by Margie Burns is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
There is no parallel between the “war on terror” and America’s effort in World War II, and Churchillian posturing by this White House should be viewed with enlightened skepticism. If they really wanted to guide adolescent males around the globe into nonviolent, constructive action rather than into terrorism, they would pursue policies congruent with that objective.
They would also have taken sensible steps at home to safeguard our chemical sector and nuclear industry, borders and ports, steps not taken to this day.
I have now had six years to observe the Bush team (I certainly never took them seriously, except for the harms done, when they were back in Texas), and my working hypothesis is that, when you’re looking at the Bush team, you have to think simple and crude. The real desideratum of this administration is basically to undo decades of twentieth-century shoring up the middle class, meaning loosely 90 percent of the population. The result is cheap labor; the means is global war. The president in his most recent State of the Union address falsely named fighting terrorism – fending off young males who come by various avenues to use guerrilla tactics -- “the defining struggle of our time.”
Thursday, February 01, 2007
February 01, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HOUSE INVESTIGATING SIGNING STATEMENTS
I hadn't heard of signing statements until the hideous administration of George W. Bush. Signing statements have been used by other presidents, but not so abusively and extensively as by Bush. Signing statements are, in essence, a statement by the president of how he interprets a law he has just signed. It appears Bush has used signing statements as a legal pretext to ignore laws he doesn't like. Rather than go through a veto fight, he signs a bill and then uses the signing statement to thumb his nose at it. This article by Charlie Savage is at www.commondreams.org:
The new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said yesterday that he is launching an aggressive investigation into whether the Bush administration has violated any of the laws it claimed a right to ignore in presidential "signing statements."
Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office. But administration officials insist that Bush's signing statements merely question the laws' constitutionality, and do not necessarily mean that the president also authorized his subordinates to violate them.
Conyers said the president has no power " to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed." And he vowed to find out whether the administration has followed each law it challenged -- including laws touching on classified national security matters, such as the tactics used to interrogate suspected terrorists and the FBI's use of the Patriot Act.
"This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate," Conyers said, and he added that the committee was determined to "get to the bottom of this matter, and to be blunt, we are not going to take no for an answer."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HOUSE INVESTIGATING SIGNING STATEMENTS
I hadn't heard of signing statements until the hideous administration of George W. Bush. Signing statements have been used by other presidents, but not so abusively and extensively as by Bush. Signing statements are, in essence, a statement by the president of how he interprets a law he has just signed. It appears Bush has used signing statements as a legal pretext to ignore laws he doesn't like. Rather than go through a veto fight, he signs a bill and then uses the signing statement to thumb his nose at it. This article by Charlie Savage is at www.commondreams.org:
The new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said yesterday that he is launching an aggressive investigation into whether the Bush administration has violated any of the laws it claimed a right to ignore in presidential "signing statements."
Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office. But administration officials insist that Bush's signing statements merely question the laws' constitutionality, and do not necessarily mean that the president also authorized his subordinates to violate them.
Conyers said the president has no power " to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed." And he vowed to find out whether the administration has followed each law it challenged -- including laws touching on classified national security matters, such as the tactics used to interrogate suspected terrorists and the FBI's use of the Patriot Act.
"This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate," Conyers said, and he added that the committee was determined to "get to the bottom of this matter, and to be blunt, we are not going to take no for an answer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)