March 31, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S IMPERIALIST HISTORIAN
In the past several months George W. Bush has represented himself as quite the reader. It reminds me of an old Andy Griffith episode where Goober Pyle claimed he had read hundreds of books. It turns out Goober's reading was comic books, and I suspect Bush's reading might be on the same level. But the administration likes to give itself some intellectual credibility by cozying up to right wing ideologues. We have an example here in the Valley in Victor Davis Hanson, who loves the war in Iraq. The most recent ideologue is a British historian named Andrew Roberts. Roberts claims that the United States is the heir of the British Empire, and that both the British and Americans have advanced the great cause of freedom in the world. That little thing called imperialism is just a minor detail. This article by Jacob Weisberg is at www.slate.com:
At the core of the book is Roberts' notion of what might be called the Super-Special Relationship. When Britain could no longer rule its empire in 1946, he argues, it handed responsibility for the rest of the world over to its successor, the United States. "Just as in science-fiction people are able to live on through cryogenic freezing after their bodies die, so British post-imperial greatness has been preserved and fostered through its incorporation into the American world-historical project," Roberts writes. He views British colonialism and American hegemony as alike in their selfless benevolence and effectiveness. Like Bush, he is peeved that the recipients of our generosity are not more grateful. The answer, Roberts says, "is the first law of modern imperialism: that no good deed goes unpunished."
As a historian, Roberts is present-minded in the extreme, returning at every stage of his narrative to justifications for Bush's actions in Iraq. The neoconservatives who want to spread democracy in the Middle East are the heirs to compassionate Victorians who sought to civilize India, China, and Africa. While the reader is still choking on the casting of Richard Perle as Lord Macaulay, Roberts is hard at work grafting Bush's head onto Winston Churchill's body. The president's prosecution of the war on terror is "vigorous" and "absolutely unwavering." His and Tony Blair's Iraq war has provided "excellent value for money" to the taxpayer. That Bush has brought "full democracy" to Iraq is stated as unequivocal fact.
Friday, March 30, 2007
March 30, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SAME OLD RHETORIC
Today's letters in The Fresno Bee has an example of right-wing talking points condensed all into one letter. The correspondent claims that terrorists declared war on the United States during the Clinton administration, that the Clinton administration's response was "weak," and that emboldened the terrorists to attack us. It sounds a lot like a recent book by a conservative "intellectual."
The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were caught, prosecuted, and sent to jail. And we didn't kill some 650,000 innocent civilians to do it. I'm getting really sick and tired of right wingers making the claim that unless you support Bush's demented "war on terror" you're a traitor. To the contrary. Sacrificing our military to Bush's obsession--much like Ahab's obsession with the great white whale--is treasonous. Undermining the Constitution is treasonous. Defiling the Geneva Conventions is treasonous. Right-wingers have no principles whatever if something makes them feel secure and safe in their self-righteousness.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH AND SADDAM
Bush I helped Saddam Hussein maintain his power in Iraq after the first Gulf War, according to a new book. Bush I initially encouraged a revolt against Saddam, but then refused to support the rebellion that ensued. This article is an excerpt from the book Web of Deceit by Barry Lando. The article is at www.alternet.org:
The following is an adapted excerpt from "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press) by Barry Lando.
Though Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, the trial of his confederates continues in Baghdad. In the next few months, the Special Iraqi Tribunal will be hearing evidence against almost a hundred of Saddam's former officials, charged with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites following the abortive uprising or Intifada of 1991.
Because of the way the Tribunal has been run, it's highly unlikely there'll be any mention of U.S. complicity with that slaughter. In fact, President George H. W. Bush was very much involved.
It was he who in February 1991, as American forces were driving Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, called for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow the dictator. That message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq. It was also contained in millions of leaflets dropped by the U.S. Air Force. Eager to end decades of repression, the Shiites arose. Their revolt spread like wildfire; in the north, the Kurds also rose up. Key Iraqi army units joined in. It looked as if Saddam's days were over.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SAME OLD RHETORIC
Today's letters in The Fresno Bee has an example of right-wing talking points condensed all into one letter. The correspondent claims that terrorists declared war on the United States during the Clinton administration, that the Clinton administration's response was "weak," and that emboldened the terrorists to attack us. It sounds a lot like a recent book by a conservative "intellectual."
The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were caught, prosecuted, and sent to jail. And we didn't kill some 650,000 innocent civilians to do it. I'm getting really sick and tired of right wingers making the claim that unless you support Bush's demented "war on terror" you're a traitor. To the contrary. Sacrificing our military to Bush's obsession--much like Ahab's obsession with the great white whale--is treasonous. Undermining the Constitution is treasonous. Defiling the Geneva Conventions is treasonous. Right-wingers have no principles whatever if something makes them feel secure and safe in their self-righteousness.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH AND SADDAM
Bush I helped Saddam Hussein maintain his power in Iraq after the first Gulf War, according to a new book. Bush I initially encouraged a revolt against Saddam, but then refused to support the rebellion that ensued. This article is an excerpt from the book Web of Deceit by Barry Lando. The article is at www.alternet.org:
The following is an adapted excerpt from "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press) by Barry Lando.
Though Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, the trial of his confederates continues in Baghdad. In the next few months, the Special Iraqi Tribunal will be hearing evidence against almost a hundred of Saddam's former officials, charged with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites following the abortive uprising or Intifada of 1991.
Because of the way the Tribunal has been run, it's highly unlikely there'll be any mention of U.S. complicity with that slaughter. In fact, President George H. W. Bush was very much involved.
It was he who in February 1991, as American forces were driving Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, called for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow the dictator. That message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq. It was also contained in millions of leaflets dropped by the U.S. Air Force. Eager to end decades of repression, the Shiites arose. Their revolt spread like wildfire; in the north, the Kurds also rose up. Key Iraqi army units joined in. It looked as if Saddam's days were over.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
March 29, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE INCOME CHASM
Newly released tax data shows income disparities in the United States at their highest levels since 1928. The Bush administration tries to claim these disparities aren't due to their tax cuts--oh no--but to changes in technology. The top 300,000 income earners collectively made as much as the bottom 150 million of us. There's something very wrong with this picture. And it's not as though the living standards for most of us are rising. To the contrary, most of us are losing ground. This article by David Cay Johnston is at www.nytimes.com:
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.
“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” Professor Saez said. “It can have important political consequences.”
Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now, Professor Saez said.
REPUBLICANS EFFORT TO SUPPRESS VOTE
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Then an amendment to the Constitution prohibited discriminating against anyone in the United States on the basis of race. But segregation continued until the 1960's. Dr. Martin Luther King and others led the way toward desegregation. But Republicans liked it better in the good old days when the votes of African-Americans and the poor could be suppressed. Some groups just don't like Republicans for some reason. The scandal that is exploding over the firing of U. S. Attorneys is very much tied to Republican efforts to suppress the votes of poor and minority voters. This article by Joseph D. Rich is at www.latimes.com:
Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.
This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE INCOME CHASM
Newly released tax data shows income disparities in the United States at their highest levels since 1928. The Bush administration tries to claim these disparities aren't due to their tax cuts--oh no--but to changes in technology. The top 300,000 income earners collectively made as much as the bottom 150 million of us. There's something very wrong with this picture. And it's not as though the living standards for most of us are rising. To the contrary, most of us are losing ground. This article by David Cay Johnston is at www.nytimes.com:
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.
“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” Professor Saez said. “It can have important political consequences.”
Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now, Professor Saez said.
REPUBLICANS EFFORT TO SUPPRESS VOTE
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Then an amendment to the Constitution prohibited discriminating against anyone in the United States on the basis of race. But segregation continued until the 1960's. Dr. Martin Luther King and others led the way toward desegregation. But Republicans liked it better in the good old days when the votes of African-Americans and the poor could be suppressed. Some groups just don't like Republicans for some reason. The scandal that is exploding over the firing of U. S. Attorneys is very much tied to Republican efforts to suppress the votes of poor and minority voters. This article by Joseph D. Rich is at www.latimes.com:
Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.
This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
March 28, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PARASITIC MILITARISM
In his farewell address to the country President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the development of a massive military-industrial complex. That was in 1961. The monster that existed then has grown to gargantuan proportions. The United States spends 50% of the total world military expenditures. Why do we need to spend that much on something as wasteful as military spending unless it's to maintain an empire? This article by Walter C. Uhler is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Parasitic militarism is the extreme militarism that afflicts a country, usually after "a prolonged reliance on military power for economic, territorial, or geopolitical gains." Such extended reliance "gradually creates a dynamic out of which evolves a large standing military apparatus that tends to perpetuate itself - and develop into a bureaucratic empire." [p. 3] It's commonly known as the military-industrial complex, but it also includes the U.S. Congress, the mainstream news media and major research universities.
What makes the U. S. militarism unique, asserts Hossein-Zadeh, is its unprecedented reliance on the predatory market forces and profit incentives that drive commercial defense contractors. Earlier empires were forced to rely largely upon arms supplied by comparatively benign state-run arsenals.
Thus, in past military empires, "arms production was dictated by war requirements, not the market or profit imperatives of arms manufacturers." [p. 18] Today, U.S. defense contractors not only market their newly proposed weapons, they also market (if not invent) the threat that their newly proposed weapons will combat. They also make political contributions (bribes) to congressmen who vote for their weapons programs, fund militaristic think tanks and employ workers, most of whom have a vested interest -- and, thus, vote accordingly -- in the job security that even unnecessary arms production provides them.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PARASITIC MILITARISM
In his farewell address to the country President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the development of a massive military-industrial complex. That was in 1961. The monster that existed then has grown to gargantuan proportions. The United States spends 50% of the total world military expenditures. Why do we need to spend that much on something as wasteful as military spending unless it's to maintain an empire? This article by Walter C. Uhler is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Parasitic militarism is the extreme militarism that afflicts a country, usually after "a prolonged reliance on military power for economic, territorial, or geopolitical gains." Such extended reliance "gradually creates a dynamic out of which evolves a large standing military apparatus that tends to perpetuate itself - and develop into a bureaucratic empire." [p. 3] It's commonly known as the military-industrial complex, but it also includes the U.S. Congress, the mainstream news media and major research universities.
What makes the U. S. militarism unique, asserts Hossein-Zadeh, is its unprecedented reliance on the predatory market forces and profit incentives that drive commercial defense contractors. Earlier empires were forced to rely largely upon arms supplied by comparatively benign state-run arsenals.
Thus, in past military empires, "arms production was dictated by war requirements, not the market or profit imperatives of arms manufacturers." [p. 18] Today, U.S. defense contractors not only market their newly proposed weapons, they also market (if not invent) the threat that their newly proposed weapons will combat. They also make political contributions (bribes) to congressmen who vote for their weapons programs, fund militaristic think tanks and employ workers, most of whom have a vested interest -- and, thus, vote accordingly -- in the job security that even unnecessary arms production provides them.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
March 27, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MAJORITY WILL SHOULD MATTER
It's always a tightrope act in a democracy. You don't want mob rule. You want to protect the rights of minorities. You don't want public policy driven by temporary passions. All of that said, however, Congress should take strong action to end the war in Iraq. The evidence is clear that most of us want out of this quagmire. It's tactically wrong. It's destroying our treasury. We're losing too many of our military to a lost cause. And, most of all, it's an immoral war. If we stand for justice, we have to get out of Iraq. This commentary by David Sirota is at www.inthesetimes.com:
How much opposition to the Iraq War must be expressed in America before Congress takes note and does something?
This simple question tears away the veneer of antiwar platitudes and pro-democracy rhetoric that spews from the nation’s capital. It has been four months since voters delivered an antiwar mandate, and the Washington establishment no longer pretends to care about the public will.
As opposition to the war has increased and as the progressive movement has demanded action from Congress, Beltway voices have expressed their disgust with democracy. In November, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on national television to say that the war “may not be popular with the public—it doesn’t matter.” In March, Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) attacked Democratic proposals to end the war: “I don’t think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls.”
The same disdain for voters is expressed by the corporate media. In early March, the New York Times reported that the most intensely antiwar Democrats are on the “fringe,” despite the Times’ own poll showing growing public outrage at the war. This followed the paper’s columnist David Brooks, who lashed out at those who would challenge pro-war Democrats: “Polarized primary voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics.”
SUPPORTING THE COUNTRY
We had some right-wingers in today's Fresno Bee commending pro-war demonstrators. The spin is that pro-war demonstrators are supporting the country. We on the other side, you see, are "America haters." In reality, people who support this war are supporting George W. Bush and his corporate war profiteers. People who love this country and what it stands for want us out of Iraq. People who support the troops don't want them sent into a meat grinder to die for nothing. As the late Ann Richards once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Monique, but it's still a hog."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MAJORITY WILL SHOULD MATTER
It's always a tightrope act in a democracy. You don't want mob rule. You want to protect the rights of minorities. You don't want public policy driven by temporary passions. All of that said, however, Congress should take strong action to end the war in Iraq. The evidence is clear that most of us want out of this quagmire. It's tactically wrong. It's destroying our treasury. We're losing too many of our military to a lost cause. And, most of all, it's an immoral war. If we stand for justice, we have to get out of Iraq. This commentary by David Sirota is at www.inthesetimes.com:
How much opposition to the Iraq War must be expressed in America before Congress takes note and does something?
This simple question tears away the veneer of antiwar platitudes and pro-democracy rhetoric that spews from the nation’s capital. It has been four months since voters delivered an antiwar mandate, and the Washington establishment no longer pretends to care about the public will.
As opposition to the war has increased and as the progressive movement has demanded action from Congress, Beltway voices have expressed their disgust with democracy. In November, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on national television to say that the war “may not be popular with the public—it doesn’t matter.” In March, Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) attacked Democratic proposals to end the war: “I don’t think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls.”
The same disdain for voters is expressed by the corporate media. In early March, the New York Times reported that the most intensely antiwar Democrats are on the “fringe,” despite the Times’ own poll showing growing public outrage at the war. This followed the paper’s columnist David Brooks, who lashed out at those who would challenge pro-war Democrats: “Polarized primary voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics.”
SUPPORTING THE COUNTRY
We had some right-wingers in today's Fresno Bee commending pro-war demonstrators. The spin is that pro-war demonstrators are supporting the country. We on the other side, you see, are "America haters." In reality, people who support this war are supporting George W. Bush and his corporate war profiteers. People who love this country and what it stands for want us out of Iraq. People who support the troops don't want them sent into a meat grinder to die for nothing. As the late Ann Richards once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Monique, but it's still a hog."
Monday, March 26, 2007
March 26, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DECLINE IN REPUBLICAN SUPPORT
I don't like the Republican party and I don't like conservatives, so it's welcome news that polls show a huge drop in Republican support. It's a party with very few accomplishments unless you want to consider the harm it's done to working people, to the Constitution, and to foreign policy. Bush is certainly the greatest example of that, but other Republican presidents like Nixon and Reagan and the first Bush also did considerable harm. This article by Paul Krugman is at www.welcometopottersville.com:
Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.
Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.
But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.
For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.
WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD
Yeah, global warming is just hysteria from us on the left. It's just solar activity. It's a normal cycle of warming and cooling the earth experiences every few million years. I wonder what right-wing talking point we'll hear about a report that we've experienced the warmest winter on record. This is not an aberration. We've had some of the warmest temperatures on record in the past ten years. This article is at www.guardian.co.uk:
The world experienced its warmest period on record during this year's northern hemisphere winter, the US government said today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report said the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature for December to February was the highest since records began in 1880.
During the three-month period, known as boreal winter, temperatures were above average worldwide, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and areas in central United States.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DECLINE IN REPUBLICAN SUPPORT
I don't like the Republican party and I don't like conservatives, so it's welcome news that polls show a huge drop in Republican support. It's a party with very few accomplishments unless you want to consider the harm it's done to working people, to the Constitution, and to foreign policy. Bush is certainly the greatest example of that, but other Republican presidents like Nixon and Reagan and the first Bush also did considerable harm. This article by Paul Krugman is at www.welcometopottersville.com:
Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.
Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.
But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.
For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.
WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD
Yeah, global warming is just hysteria from us on the left. It's just solar activity. It's a normal cycle of warming and cooling the earth experiences every few million years. I wonder what right-wing talking point we'll hear about a report that we've experienced the warmest winter on record. This is not an aberration. We've had some of the warmest temperatures on record in the past ten years. This article is at www.guardian.co.uk:
The world experienced its warmest period on record during this year's northern hemisphere winter, the US government said today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report said the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature for December to February was the highest since records began in 1880.
During the three-month period, known as boreal winter, temperatures were above average worldwide, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and areas in central United States.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
March 25, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL
This is a long and interesting article about how happiness and material possessions don't necessarily go together. Psychologist Abraham Maslow developed ideas about the "hierarchy of needs." Once your essential material needs are met, according to his theory, then you can become "self-actualizing." Maybe it's time we concentrate on meeting the essential needs of people, which includes education, health care, decent housing, and social communities. It's time to stop emphasizing the big houses and big cars and other grandiose symbols of material success. As the planet's resources have become more stressed, it makes sense. This article by Bill McKibben is at www.alternet.org:
For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both. That's why the centuries since Adam Smith launched modern economics with his book The Wealth of Nations have been so single-mindedly devoted to the dogged pursuit of maximum economic production.
Smith's core ideas -- that individuals pursuing their own interests in a market society end up making each other richer; and that increasing efficiency, usually by increasing scale, is the key to increasing wealth --have indisputably worked. They've produced more More than he could ever have imagined. They've built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith's ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.
But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown a few trees over to make her nest. And that changes everything. Now, with the stone of your life or your society gripped in your hand, you have to choose. It's More or Better.
CONSERVATISM IS TOO EXPENSIVE
Even if you can put away such exemplary traits as compassion and decency, you have to reject conservatism if you're a practical person. Conservatism is just too expensive. Jane Smiley makes some interesting points in this article about the glaring costs of conservatism. Carpet bombing is a lot more expensive than using good intelligence to find our enemies. Polluting the environment creates exponentially greater costs in the future. The article is at www.alternet.org:
What costs more -- a vast middle class who can support themselves and their towns and cities and schools and children and elderly relatives, or a vast class of working poor who can barely support themselves and certainly cannot take care of failing schools, deteriorating housing stock, surging crime, and chaos proliferating all around them? Just because the conservatives don't want to pay for something doesn't mean costs are not incurred; they are simply put off for another day, when they will be geometrically higher.
The root problem of conservatism is that it is tribal -- conservatives cannot or will not believe in such basic concepts as epidemiology, ecology, or even Keynesian economics (not to mention brotherly love). But even though conservatives have been fighting interconnectedness forever, it continues to exist (that "reality has a liberal bias" sort of thing). Regulations and benefits like healthcare and diplomacy exist not out of soft-hearted liberal guilt, but because taking care of matters before they get out of hand is cheaper, while hiding your head in the sand, clinging to us-and-them beliefs, and arming yourselves to the teeth is ever more expensive. In Bleak House, Charles Dickens pointed out to a ruling class that was reluctant to assume the expenses of public sanitation that smallpox could not be excluded from the houses of the rich simply because the rich disdained the poor. That was a hundred and fifty years ago, and we are still having to point the same thing out today. You don't have to recognize the connection (as in smallpox, as in global warming) in order for it to be there.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL
This is a long and interesting article about how happiness and material possessions don't necessarily go together. Psychologist Abraham Maslow developed ideas about the "hierarchy of needs." Once your essential material needs are met, according to his theory, then you can become "self-actualizing." Maybe it's time we concentrate on meeting the essential needs of people, which includes education, health care, decent housing, and social communities. It's time to stop emphasizing the big houses and big cars and other grandiose symbols of material success. As the planet's resources have become more stressed, it makes sense. This article by Bill McKibben is at www.alternet.org:
For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both. That's why the centuries since Adam Smith launched modern economics with his book The Wealth of Nations have been so single-mindedly devoted to the dogged pursuit of maximum economic production.
Smith's core ideas -- that individuals pursuing their own interests in a market society end up making each other richer; and that increasing efficiency, usually by increasing scale, is the key to increasing wealth --have indisputably worked. They've produced more More than he could ever have imagined. They've built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith's ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.
But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown a few trees over to make her nest. And that changes everything. Now, with the stone of your life or your society gripped in your hand, you have to choose. It's More or Better.
CONSERVATISM IS TOO EXPENSIVE
Even if you can put away such exemplary traits as compassion and decency, you have to reject conservatism if you're a practical person. Conservatism is just too expensive. Jane Smiley makes some interesting points in this article about the glaring costs of conservatism. Carpet bombing is a lot more expensive than using good intelligence to find our enemies. Polluting the environment creates exponentially greater costs in the future. The article is at www.alternet.org:
What costs more -- a vast middle class who can support themselves and their towns and cities and schools and children and elderly relatives, or a vast class of working poor who can barely support themselves and certainly cannot take care of failing schools, deteriorating housing stock, surging crime, and chaos proliferating all around them? Just because the conservatives don't want to pay for something doesn't mean costs are not incurred; they are simply put off for another day, when they will be geometrically higher.
The root problem of conservatism is that it is tribal -- conservatives cannot or will not believe in such basic concepts as epidemiology, ecology, or even Keynesian economics (not to mention brotherly love). But even though conservatives have been fighting interconnectedness forever, it continues to exist (that "reality has a liberal bias" sort of thing). Regulations and benefits like healthcare and diplomacy exist not out of soft-hearted liberal guilt, but because taking care of matters before they get out of hand is cheaper, while hiding your head in the sand, clinging to us-and-them beliefs, and arming yourselves to the teeth is ever more expensive. In Bleak House, Charles Dickens pointed out to a ruling class that was reluctant to assume the expenses of public sanitation that smallpox could not be excluded from the houses of the rich simply because the rich disdained the poor. That was a hundred and fifty years ago, and we are still having to point the same thing out today. You don't have to recognize the connection (as in smallpox, as in global warming) in order for it to be there.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
March 24, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CAPITALISM-DEMOCRACY CONFLICT
In the past couple of decades there has been confusion among Americans about the meaning of democracy. "Democracy" has become the same as capitalism in their minds. "Democracy" means the freedom to acquire things. It's a far different meaning than the Founding Fathers had in mind. This article by Gerry Lower is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The overwhelming majority of Americans agree that democracy is the political philosophy of choice in the modern world, but most Americans know very little about the WHAT of democracy as it emerged over two centuries ago. They know even less about HOW democracy emerged and they know virtually nothing about WHY democracy emerged in their homeland.
That ignorance explains why many Americans are currently unable to make a distinction between corrupt corporate capitalism and democracy, thinking them to be synonymous. It is as if we have not yet experienced adequate numbers of political and corporate scandals to get the message. Only flat out ignorance can explain our current position, which is essentially 180 degrees off course from what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
That ignorance thrives in the U.S. because knowledge of human rights and democracy has been made irrelevant for both rich and poor in struggling to survive a competitive socioeconomic system which knows little of family and community values. In other words, capitalism nourishes ignorance as it nourishes materialism in the interest of shallowness. Capitalism has made the U.S. into a nation in which both the rich and poor are desperate, to thrive and to survive, respectively.
THE ILLUSION
One of the most influential books I've ever read is The Rich and the Super-Rich by Ferdinand Lundberg. Although he wrote the book back in the 1960's, Lundberg's book is probably even truer today than it was then. We have a few plutocrats who do very well in the United States. The "prosperity" most of us enjoy is mostly an illusion. We own very little. Even homeowners don't really own their homes. The banks own the homes while the borrowers seek to acquire equity over years and years. This article by Joshua Holland is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
America is very wealthy country, but one has to wonder how much of our wealth is in fact a chimera, spun of a consumerist ideal and given the appearance of solidity by a flood of easy credit? How much poverty and real economic pain is covered up by an endless succession of pay-day loans and EZ-finance rip-offs that eventually just bury people under mountains of debt from which they have little chance of digging themselves out.
Today's bankruptcy rate is ten times what it was during the Great Depression, foreclosures are at a 37-year high and the United States has a negative savings rate, yet we're told every day that the economy is going gangbusters.
George W. Bush often points out that more Americans own their own homes today than ever before. He doesn't mention that they also have less equity in those homes than ever before. Every day brings news of the potential scope of the emerging "sub-prime" loan scandal -- what Robert Kuttner called "deregulation's latest gift" -- and new indicators that the housing market that's driven so much of the economy for the past five years is a bubble that's begun to burst right before our eyes.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CAPITALISM-DEMOCRACY CONFLICT
In the past couple of decades there has been confusion among Americans about the meaning of democracy. "Democracy" has become the same as capitalism in their minds. "Democracy" means the freedom to acquire things. It's a far different meaning than the Founding Fathers had in mind. This article by Gerry Lower is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The overwhelming majority of Americans agree that democracy is the political philosophy of choice in the modern world, but most Americans know very little about the WHAT of democracy as it emerged over two centuries ago. They know even less about HOW democracy emerged and they know virtually nothing about WHY democracy emerged in their homeland.
That ignorance explains why many Americans are currently unable to make a distinction between corrupt corporate capitalism and democracy, thinking them to be synonymous. It is as if we have not yet experienced adequate numbers of political and corporate scandals to get the message. Only flat out ignorance can explain our current position, which is essentially 180 degrees off course from what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
That ignorance thrives in the U.S. because knowledge of human rights and democracy has been made irrelevant for both rich and poor in struggling to survive a competitive socioeconomic system which knows little of family and community values. In other words, capitalism nourishes ignorance as it nourishes materialism in the interest of shallowness. Capitalism has made the U.S. into a nation in which both the rich and poor are desperate, to thrive and to survive, respectively.
THE ILLUSION
One of the most influential books I've ever read is The Rich and the Super-Rich by Ferdinand Lundberg. Although he wrote the book back in the 1960's, Lundberg's book is probably even truer today than it was then. We have a few plutocrats who do very well in the United States. The "prosperity" most of us enjoy is mostly an illusion. We own very little. Even homeowners don't really own their homes. The banks own the homes while the borrowers seek to acquire equity over years and years. This article by Joshua Holland is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
America is very wealthy country, but one has to wonder how much of our wealth is in fact a chimera, spun of a consumerist ideal and given the appearance of solidity by a flood of easy credit? How much poverty and real economic pain is covered up by an endless succession of pay-day loans and EZ-finance rip-offs that eventually just bury people under mountains of debt from which they have little chance of digging themselves out.
Today's bankruptcy rate is ten times what it was during the Great Depression, foreclosures are at a 37-year high and the United States has a negative savings rate, yet we're told every day that the economy is going gangbusters.
George W. Bush often points out that more Americans own their own homes today than ever before. He doesn't mention that they also have less equity in those homes than ever before. Every day brings news of the potential scope of the emerging "sub-prime" loan scandal -- what Robert Kuttner called "deregulation's latest gift" -- and new indicators that the housing market that's driven so much of the economy for the past five years is a bubble that's begun to burst right before our eyes.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
March 22, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE SLIMY NEW YORK TIMES
Right-wingers have frequently claimed that The New York Times is a bastion of liberalism. Harpy Ann Coulter even said that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, should have bombed The Times instead. But it was The Times, perhaps more than any other major media outlet, that cheered on the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. The Times acted like a stenographer for Bush as they published lie after lie. The Times has also made Al Gore a frequent target. It isn't enough that The Times helped Bush steal the presidency in 2000, but now they're attacking Gore anew because of Gore's quest to deal with global warming. This article by Robert Parry is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
When historians sort out what happened to the United States at the start of the 21st Century, one of the mysteries may be why the national press corps ganged up like school-yard bullies against a well-qualified Democratic presidential candidate while giving his dimwitted Republican opponent virtually a free pass.
How could major news organizations, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have behaved so irresponsibly as to spread falsehoods and exaggerations to tear down then-Vice President Al Gore – ironically while the newspapers were berating him for supposedly lying and exaggerating?
In a modern information age, these historians might ask, how could an apocryphal quote like Gore claiming to have “invented the Internet” been allowed to define a leading political figure much as the made-up quote “let them eat cake” was exploited by French propagandists to undermine Marie Antoinette two centuries earlier?
Why did the U.S. news media continue ridiculing Gore in 2002 when he was one of the most prominent Americans to warn that George W. Bush’s radical policy of preemptive war was leading the nation into a disaster in Iraq?
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE SLIMY NEW YORK TIMES
Right-wingers have frequently claimed that The New York Times is a bastion of liberalism. Harpy Ann Coulter even said that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, should have bombed The Times instead. But it was The Times, perhaps more than any other major media outlet, that cheered on the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. The Times acted like a stenographer for Bush as they published lie after lie. The Times has also made Al Gore a frequent target. It isn't enough that The Times helped Bush steal the presidency in 2000, but now they're attacking Gore anew because of Gore's quest to deal with global warming. This article by Robert Parry is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
When historians sort out what happened to the United States at the start of the 21st Century, one of the mysteries may be why the national press corps ganged up like school-yard bullies against a well-qualified Democratic presidential candidate while giving his dimwitted Republican opponent virtually a free pass.
How could major news organizations, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have behaved so irresponsibly as to spread falsehoods and exaggerations to tear down then-Vice President Al Gore – ironically while the newspapers were berating him for supposedly lying and exaggerating?
In a modern information age, these historians might ask, how could an apocryphal quote like Gore claiming to have “invented the Internet” been allowed to define a leading political figure much as the made-up quote “let them eat cake” was exploited by French propagandists to undermine Marie Antoinette two centuries earlier?
Why did the U.S. news media continue ridiculing Gore in 2002 when he was one of the most prominent Americans to warn that George W. Bush’s radical policy of preemptive war was leading the nation into a disaster in Iraq?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
March 21, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WORLD CLASS ARROGANCE
George W. Bush once said the Constitution is just a "piece of paper." That has been the modus operandi of this administration. The Constitution doesn't matter, ethics and morality don't matter, international law doesn't matter, and treaties don't matter. The only thing that matters is what Bush and his cronies want. We see that same arrogance with the firing of eight U. S. attorneys for blatantly political reasons. The administration has tried to spin this as normal operating administration for every administration, but the historical record is clear. This is highly unusual and deserves a full investigation. This column by Eugene Robinson is at www.washingtonpost.com:
Arrogance has been the most consistent hallmark of George W. Bush's presidency. His administration's simple philosophy of government has been consistent: We can do any damn thing we want.
We can invade Iraq. We can blow off the Geneva Conventions. We can listen to your private phone calls, Mr. and Ms. America, and we can read your private e-mails, too. We can arrest anybody we want and hold them as long as we want, and we don't even have to tell them why, much less file formal charges or hold a trial. We can even defy the laws of science -- or at least ignore the ones that annoy us, such as that whole "greenhouse effect" thing. We can use the troops for photo ops when they come back from war grievously wounded and then basically forget about them.
DEREGULATION FAILS AGAIN
One of the big mantras we've gotten from right-wingers is about the wonders of deregulation. It fosters competition, they say, and drives down prices and gives consumers more choices and lower prices. Just about everything that has been deregulated has become more expensive, less efficient, and more confusing. A great example was the deregulation of electricity in California. We got rolling blackouts and shafted by Enron. Phone bills are higher since deregulation. Airline service is worse. And banking is truly on the precipice. When Bush I was in office a massive federal bailout was required because of the savings and loan debacle created by deregulation. Now we have the teetering of the subprime mortgage business. This article by Robert Kuttner is at www.prospect.org:
In the past decade, as regulators discarded rules, shady mortgage banking companies, financed by the bluest-chip outfits on Wall Street, calculated that they could make a lot of money offering bait-and-switch mortgages to poor credit risks. Default and foreclosure rates would be greater, but higher profits would more than compensate for the risks. So the subprime mortgage industry, enabled by the big banks, invented amazing gimmicks. These included not just variable-rate mortgages, but mortgages that were initially interest-only, mortgages with introductory teaser rates, mortgages with no down payment. No income verification required! No credit check! Subprime operators targeted people with horrific credit histories and families desperate for housing who could not afford the debt they were taking on. Last year, 60 percent of subprime loans required no meaningful documentation.
Then came the morning-after: As higher payments kicked in, people couldn't meet them. Defaults skyrocketed, to an estimated 13 percent of all such loans. At least 25 subprime lenders have gone out of business. The big dogs on Wall Street, who had invested in the subprime operators, took a big hit, too.
It's not clear where this will end. Many low-income families will lose their homes. Innocent investors will suffer the spillover effects on the stock market, and general mortgage rates may have to go up to compensate for these losses of reckless speculation.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WORLD CLASS ARROGANCE
George W. Bush once said the Constitution is just a "piece of paper." That has been the modus operandi of this administration. The Constitution doesn't matter, ethics and morality don't matter, international law doesn't matter, and treaties don't matter. The only thing that matters is what Bush and his cronies want. We see that same arrogance with the firing of eight U. S. attorneys for blatantly political reasons. The administration has tried to spin this as normal operating administration for every administration, but the historical record is clear. This is highly unusual and deserves a full investigation. This column by Eugene Robinson is at www.washingtonpost.com:
Arrogance has been the most consistent hallmark of George W. Bush's presidency. His administration's simple philosophy of government has been consistent: We can do any damn thing we want.
We can invade Iraq. We can blow off the Geneva Conventions. We can listen to your private phone calls, Mr. and Ms. America, and we can read your private e-mails, too. We can arrest anybody we want and hold them as long as we want, and we don't even have to tell them why, much less file formal charges or hold a trial. We can even defy the laws of science -- or at least ignore the ones that annoy us, such as that whole "greenhouse effect" thing. We can use the troops for photo ops when they come back from war grievously wounded and then basically forget about them.
DEREGULATION FAILS AGAIN
One of the big mantras we've gotten from right-wingers is about the wonders of deregulation. It fosters competition, they say, and drives down prices and gives consumers more choices and lower prices. Just about everything that has been deregulated has become more expensive, less efficient, and more confusing. A great example was the deregulation of electricity in California. We got rolling blackouts and shafted by Enron. Phone bills are higher since deregulation. Airline service is worse. And banking is truly on the precipice. When Bush I was in office a massive federal bailout was required because of the savings and loan debacle created by deregulation. Now we have the teetering of the subprime mortgage business. This article by Robert Kuttner is at www.prospect.org:
In the past decade, as regulators discarded rules, shady mortgage banking companies, financed by the bluest-chip outfits on Wall Street, calculated that they could make a lot of money offering bait-and-switch mortgages to poor credit risks. Default and foreclosure rates would be greater, but higher profits would more than compensate for the risks. So the subprime mortgage industry, enabled by the big banks, invented amazing gimmicks. These included not just variable-rate mortgages, but mortgages that were initially interest-only, mortgages with introductory teaser rates, mortgages with no down payment. No income verification required! No credit check! Subprime operators targeted people with horrific credit histories and families desperate for housing who could not afford the debt they were taking on. Last year, 60 percent of subprime loans required no meaningful documentation.
Then came the morning-after: As higher payments kicked in, people couldn't meet them. Defaults skyrocketed, to an estimated 13 percent of all such loans. At least 25 subprime lenders have gone out of business. The big dogs on Wall Street, who had invested in the subprime operators, took a big hit, too.
It's not clear where this will end. Many low-income families will lose their homes. Innocent investors will suffer the spillover effects on the stock market, and general mortgage rates may have to go up to compensate for these losses of reckless speculation.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
March 20, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WHAT WE SHOULD LEARN
There is not much good that will come of this war in Iraq. We're responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. We've sacrificed members of our own military senselessly. We've left countless others with wounds that they will suffer the rest of their lives. We've destabilized the Middle East. We've run massive deficits that threaten to cripple our economy. The only good that can come from this atrocity is what we can learn from it. Gary Hart writes about it in this article linked at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Do not manufacture justification for invasions. Plan for all eventualities, including the most unpleasant. Do not pay exiles to tell you what you want to hear. Deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Be candid about possible costs in lives and money. And an endless list of common sense, and Constitutional, dos and don'ts.
The second kind of lessons are less obvious and have to do with the new realities of the 21st century:
First, treat jihadist terrorism more like organized crime than traditional warfare. By declaring "war on terrorism" we made the fatal mistake that it could be crushed using conventional warfare and massed armies. We clearly had the legal and moral right to overturn the Taliban government in Afghanistan that harbored al Qaeda as it planned and carried out the 9.11 attacks. Even so, the democratization of an ancient tribal society is proving hugely more difficult than driving the Taliban out of Kabul. Indeed, it seems set on returning.
Instead, we should create NATO II, an organization combining the intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and special forces of Western democracies to coordinate the crushing of jihadist cells.
SOME "FAMILY VALUES" PARTY
During the Clinton administration Republicans fought against an unpaid family leave bill. The bill allows people to take a certain amount of unpaid leave due to things like a family emergency. Republicans have fought against raising the minimum wage, or the existence of a minimum wage at all. Republicans opposed Social Security back when FDR proposed it. Now Republicans will fight a proposal for a national sick leave bill. The bill would mean sick leave for employees of any company that employees 15 or more people. We'll get the same old excuse from Republicans that it's harmful to small business. Their definition of "small business" might differ from yours and mine. This article by Bob Geiger is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The Kennedy bill, which applies to companies with 15 or more employees, is a logical follow-up to the minimum wage increase that was passed by the Democratic Congress in their first two months of controlling the agenda on Capitol Hill.
And despite the fact that almost half of all U.S. workers have no paid sick leave -- with 76 percent of the lowest-income workers having no ability to stay home sick without losing income -- Senate Republicans are already signaling that they're willing to fight this at least as strongly as they boycotted raising the minimum wage.
"To extend this type of leave requirement to businesses, as is contemplated by the Healthy Families Act, would be little more than an unfunded mandate on small businesses throughout the country," said Mike Enzi (R-WY), the ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in hearings last month. "In addition, this legislation represents only direct labor cost, and does not account for a myriad of other indirect costs."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WHAT WE SHOULD LEARN
There is not much good that will come of this war in Iraq. We're responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. We've sacrificed members of our own military senselessly. We've left countless others with wounds that they will suffer the rest of their lives. We've destabilized the Middle East. We've run massive deficits that threaten to cripple our economy. The only good that can come from this atrocity is what we can learn from it. Gary Hart writes about it in this article linked at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Do not manufacture justification for invasions. Plan for all eventualities, including the most unpleasant. Do not pay exiles to tell you what you want to hear. Deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Be candid about possible costs in lives and money. And an endless list of common sense, and Constitutional, dos and don'ts.
The second kind of lessons are less obvious and have to do with the new realities of the 21st century:
First, treat jihadist terrorism more like organized crime than traditional warfare. By declaring "war on terrorism" we made the fatal mistake that it could be crushed using conventional warfare and massed armies. We clearly had the legal and moral right to overturn the Taliban government in Afghanistan that harbored al Qaeda as it planned and carried out the 9.11 attacks. Even so, the democratization of an ancient tribal society is proving hugely more difficult than driving the Taliban out of Kabul. Indeed, it seems set on returning.
Instead, we should create NATO II, an organization combining the intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and special forces of Western democracies to coordinate the crushing of jihadist cells.
SOME "FAMILY VALUES" PARTY
During the Clinton administration Republicans fought against an unpaid family leave bill. The bill allows people to take a certain amount of unpaid leave due to things like a family emergency. Republicans have fought against raising the minimum wage, or the existence of a minimum wage at all. Republicans opposed Social Security back when FDR proposed it. Now Republicans will fight a proposal for a national sick leave bill. The bill would mean sick leave for employees of any company that employees 15 or more people. We'll get the same old excuse from Republicans that it's harmful to small business. Their definition of "small business" might differ from yours and mine. This article by Bob Geiger is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The Kennedy bill, which applies to companies with 15 or more employees, is a logical follow-up to the minimum wage increase that was passed by the Democratic Congress in their first two months of controlling the agenda on Capitol Hill.
And despite the fact that almost half of all U.S. workers have no paid sick leave -- with 76 percent of the lowest-income workers having no ability to stay home sick without losing income -- Senate Republicans are already signaling that they're willing to fight this at least as strongly as they boycotted raising the minimum wage.
"To extend this type of leave requirement to businesses, as is contemplated by the Healthy Families Act, would be little more than an unfunded mandate on small businesses throughout the country," said Mike Enzi (R-WY), the ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in hearings last month. "In addition, this legislation represents only direct labor cost, and does not account for a myriad of other indirect costs."
Monday, March 19, 2007
March 19, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LIFE MUCH WORSE FOR IRAQIS
I remember a memo circulated by right-wingers that claimed things were just going great in Iraq since the U. S. invasion. They were getting new hospitals; they had electricity; the girls were getting educated. It was just propaganda, of course. A new poll shows the vast majority of Iraqis feel their lives are worse and they are very pessimistic about the future. This article by Susan Page and Omar Salih is at www.usatoday.com:
Jobs gone and schools closed. Marriages delayed and children mourned. Markets bombed and clean water in short supply. Speaking freely now a dangerous act.
And hope lost.
Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.
Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis — a survey sponsored jointly by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network — find a nation that in large measure has fragmented into fear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly. Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year.
LIKE OIL AND WATER
Conservatives can't govern. That's been fairly well established. Eisenhower was the closest to a decent Republican president, although there were problems with his presidency too. Then we got louts like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II. All their administrations have been characterized by scandals. These are real scandals, not the phony Monica Lewinsky dustup. As this article notes, it boils down to ideology. How can a philosophy that consistently denigrates government make government work? The article by Robert L. Borosage is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals--ideology is.
Conservative presidents--from Nixon to Reagan to Bush--believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.
Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divisions with back-alley brass knuckles--from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless is seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LIFE MUCH WORSE FOR IRAQIS
I remember a memo circulated by right-wingers that claimed things were just going great in Iraq since the U. S. invasion. They were getting new hospitals; they had electricity; the girls were getting educated. It was just propaganda, of course. A new poll shows the vast majority of Iraqis feel their lives are worse and they are very pessimistic about the future. This article by Susan Page and Omar Salih is at www.usatoday.com:
Jobs gone and schools closed. Marriages delayed and children mourned. Markets bombed and clean water in short supply. Speaking freely now a dangerous act.
And hope lost.
Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.
Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis — a survey sponsored jointly by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network — find a nation that in large measure has fragmented into fear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly. Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year.
LIKE OIL AND WATER
Conservatives can't govern. That's been fairly well established. Eisenhower was the closest to a decent Republican president, although there were problems with his presidency too. Then we got louts like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II. All their administrations have been characterized by scandals. These are real scandals, not the phony Monica Lewinsky dustup. As this article notes, it boils down to ideology. How can a philosophy that consistently denigrates government make government work? The article by Robert L. Borosage is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals--ideology is.
Conservative presidents--from Nixon to Reagan to Bush--believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere.
Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.
Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divisions with back-alley brass knuckles--from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless is seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
March 18, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MONEY AND POWER
This is an interesting article about the tightwads who comprise the class of the super rich. We're talking billionaires here, often multi-billionaires. With the exception of Warren Buffett, they are very tight-fisted in giving away any of their massive fortunes, even though they would never be able to spend all the money they've accumulated. This is in real contrast to past members of the super-rich such as Andrew Carnegie, who gave away a hefty percentage of his fortune. But these are the people we're supposed to admire. They're the people who need those big tax cuts. This article by Gregg Easterbrook is at www.latimes.com:
Why do the super-rich hoard? Certainly not because they need money to spend. As economist Christopher Carroll of Johns Hopkins University points out in an upcoming paper, the super-rich save far more than they could ever spend, even with Dionysian indulgence. Gates' fortune must throw off, even by conservative estimations, about $6 million a day after taxes. You couldn't spend $6 million every day of your life even if you did nothing all day long but buy original art and waterfront real estate. The fortunes of Allen, Knight and others mentioned here throw off at least $1 million a day after taxes. Nobody can spend $1 million every day.
Carroll speculates that the super-rich won't give away money they know they will never use for two reasons: because they love money, and because extreme wealth confers power. We know already that people who give their lives over to loving money surrender their humanity in the process. As for clout, Carroll quotes Howard Hughes: "Money is the measuring rod of power." That $53 billion ensures Gates will be treated with awe wherever he goes. If he gave away 78% of his wealth like Carnegie did, he might be universally admired, but he would no longer be treated with the same degree of fawning reverence. He might even, someday, find himself in the same room with someone who has more money!
Runaway wealth accumulation by zillionaires, combined with the rising share of national income claimed by the top 1%, often inspires calls to soak the rich. But I disagree. Ideally, the top federal income tax rate and capital-gains tax rate should be increased a few percentage points while the payroll tax (which funds Social Security and Medicare) is reduced. Reasonable increases of taxes on the well-off — if done to reduce taxes on the average — would make the U.S. a fairer place.
THE ROT AT THE TOP
This editorial from The Los Angeles Times talks about the abject incompetence in the Bush administration. I think the editorial goes a little too lightly on the endemic corruption of Bush and his cronies, but it's worth looking at the combination of arrogance and incompetence leading to the bad place we are today. The editorial is at www.latimes.com:
IT'S TOO EARLY TO SAY whether any laws were broken in the Bush administration's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, a purge that was justified as an exercise of presidential power though both President Bush and his attorney general profess to be ignorant of the details of the firings. But even assuming that laws weren't broken, the affair is a disaster for the administration, one that recalls Talleyrand's observation: "This is worse than a crime, it's a blunder."
That is why this scandal (and the preceding week's Walter Reed scandal) loom so large, even among some Republican lawmakers — they fit into a larger pattern of incompetence on the part of this administration. Any confidence the American people or Congress once had in the administration's capabilities has long since been depleted.
It wasn't always so. Early on, this administration was perceived — by ideological friends and foes alike — as a paragon of competence. Names like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and even Rice (who knew?) were supposed to signal steady, experienced leadership. How far we've come.
The botched, ill-planned occupation of Iraq will go down as the administration's capital blunder. It stemmed from a cavalier arrogance, a belief that when you are on the right side of history, the details will take care of themselves. The sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the constitutional shortcuts in the war on terror also qualify.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MONEY AND POWER
This is an interesting article about the tightwads who comprise the class of the super rich. We're talking billionaires here, often multi-billionaires. With the exception of Warren Buffett, they are very tight-fisted in giving away any of their massive fortunes, even though they would never be able to spend all the money they've accumulated. This is in real contrast to past members of the super-rich such as Andrew Carnegie, who gave away a hefty percentage of his fortune. But these are the people we're supposed to admire. They're the people who need those big tax cuts. This article by Gregg Easterbrook is at www.latimes.com:
Why do the super-rich hoard? Certainly not because they need money to spend. As economist Christopher Carroll of Johns Hopkins University points out in an upcoming paper, the super-rich save far more than they could ever spend, even with Dionysian indulgence. Gates' fortune must throw off, even by conservative estimations, about $6 million a day after taxes. You couldn't spend $6 million every day of your life even if you did nothing all day long but buy original art and waterfront real estate. The fortunes of Allen, Knight and others mentioned here throw off at least $1 million a day after taxes. Nobody can spend $1 million every day.
Carroll speculates that the super-rich won't give away money they know they will never use for two reasons: because they love money, and because extreme wealth confers power. We know already that people who give their lives over to loving money surrender their humanity in the process. As for clout, Carroll quotes Howard Hughes: "Money is the measuring rod of power." That $53 billion ensures Gates will be treated with awe wherever he goes. If he gave away 78% of his wealth like Carnegie did, he might be universally admired, but he would no longer be treated with the same degree of fawning reverence. He might even, someday, find himself in the same room with someone who has more money!
Runaway wealth accumulation by zillionaires, combined with the rising share of national income claimed by the top 1%, often inspires calls to soak the rich. But I disagree. Ideally, the top federal income tax rate and capital-gains tax rate should be increased a few percentage points while the payroll tax (which funds Social Security and Medicare) is reduced. Reasonable increases of taxes on the well-off — if done to reduce taxes on the average — would make the U.S. a fairer place.
THE ROT AT THE TOP
This editorial from The Los Angeles Times talks about the abject incompetence in the Bush administration. I think the editorial goes a little too lightly on the endemic corruption of Bush and his cronies, but it's worth looking at the combination of arrogance and incompetence leading to the bad place we are today. The editorial is at www.latimes.com:
IT'S TOO EARLY TO SAY whether any laws were broken in the Bush administration's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, a purge that was justified as an exercise of presidential power though both President Bush and his attorney general profess to be ignorant of the details of the firings. But even assuming that laws weren't broken, the affair is a disaster for the administration, one that recalls Talleyrand's observation: "This is worse than a crime, it's a blunder."
That is why this scandal (and the preceding week's Walter Reed scandal) loom so large, even among some Republican lawmakers — they fit into a larger pattern of incompetence on the part of this administration. Any confidence the American people or Congress once had in the administration's capabilities has long since been depleted.
It wasn't always so. Early on, this administration was perceived — by ideological friends and foes alike — as a paragon of competence. Names like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and even Rice (who knew?) were supposed to signal steady, experienced leadership. How far we've come.
The botched, ill-planned occupation of Iraq will go down as the administration's capital blunder. It stemmed from a cavalier arrogance, a belief that when you are on the right side of history, the details will take care of themselves. The sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the constitutional shortcuts in the war on terror also qualify.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
March 17, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
INCREDIBLY NASTY PEOPLE
One thing right-wingers are very accomplished at is nastiness. You get a good sample of right-wingers in the letters page of The Fresno Bee. Today's letter is from a guy who claims he's been in the radio biz in Fresno for 25 years. He says KFPT, our progressive talk station that is going to change format, couldn't attract advertisers because of capitalism. He didn't mention that there is evidence that the Air America network was in effect boycotted by many major corporations because they didn't like Air America's content. Audience be damned! Al Gore won the presidential election of 2000. Congress was captured by Democrats last year. Polls show that Americans support liberal ideas, but we keep getting told that progressive radio won't make money.
The claim about capitalism reminds me of the 1950's when another great Republican demagogue named Joe McCarthy went on his anti-Communist witch hunt. Many successful people, who should have been successful according to this jerk, were blacklisted because corporations didn't like their politics. Yeah, but content doesn't matter. It's just about money. Sure.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
INCREDIBLY NASTY PEOPLE
One thing right-wingers are very accomplished at is nastiness. You get a good sample of right-wingers in the letters page of The Fresno Bee. Today's letter is from a guy who claims he's been in the radio biz in Fresno for 25 years. He says KFPT, our progressive talk station that is going to change format, couldn't attract advertisers because of capitalism. He didn't mention that there is evidence that the Air America network was in effect boycotted by many major corporations because they didn't like Air America's content. Audience be damned! Al Gore won the presidential election of 2000. Congress was captured by Democrats last year. Polls show that Americans support liberal ideas, but we keep getting told that progressive radio won't make money.
The claim about capitalism reminds me of the 1950's when another great Republican demagogue named Joe McCarthy went on his anti-Communist witch hunt. Many successful people, who should have been successful according to this jerk, were blacklisted because corporations didn't like their politics. Yeah, but content doesn't matter. It's just about money. Sure.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
March 15, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RELIGION IS LIKE AN ONION
This commentary makes me think of religion being like an onion. You peel away layers to get to different degrees of belief. When you get to the very center you arrive at the fundamentalist fanatics who believe they and they alone know God's will, and that they are authorized to do anything to do his will. That includes starting wars, torturing people, bombing abortion clinics, subjugating women, persecuting gays, and ignoring global climate change. I don't know how anyone could so something as simple as watch Inherit the Wind and not have profound doubts about the Bible and other religious texts. This article by Sam Harris is at www.latimes.com:
The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.
Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RELIGION IS LIKE AN ONION
This commentary makes me think of religion being like an onion. You peel away layers to get to different degrees of belief. When you get to the very center you arrive at the fundamentalist fanatics who believe they and they alone know God's will, and that they are authorized to do anything to do his will. That includes starting wars, torturing people, bombing abortion clinics, subjugating women, persecuting gays, and ignoring global climate change. I don't know how anyone could so something as simple as watch Inherit the Wind and not have profound doubts about the Bible and other religious texts. This article by Sam Harris is at www.latimes.com:
The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.
Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
March 14, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
OPEN THE WORM CAN
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written that the Bushes and their cohorts would do anything to stay in power. Part of that determination is that so many scandals are ready to emerge about this administration. It's hard to imagine that there could be even more when you consider the already staggering list of crimes and incompetence. But there are undoubtedly things we still do not know. Many distinguished people are opposed to the idea of impeachment because of its almost certain failure in the Senate. This article makes a good case for impeachment, even if it fails in the Senate, because it will reveal the scope and magnitude of the crimes by this administration. I agree. The article by Ernest Partridge is at www.crisispapers.org:
These skeptics would have a point if Senate conviction and removal from office were the sole objective and consequence of impeachment, as the Republican regulars and their compliant enablers in the mainstream media would have us believe. Once again, by assuming that removal from office is the be-all and end-all of impeachment, the Democrats and many of their progressive supporters and commentators have carelessly consented to play the GOP game by the GOP rules. They have, as George Lakoff might put it, thoughtlessly adopted their opponents’ “framing” of the impeachment issue. They have, to put it bluntly, been suckered again, as they have all too many times in the past. When will they ever learn?
These Democrats, et al, seem to pay little attention to the potential benefits of an unsuccessful impeachment. These benefits include the uncovering and publicizing of the Bushevik crimes and the consequent educating of the public. This would, in turn, lead to the discrediting of the mainstream media and the devastation of the Republican Party, resulting in a Democratic landslide in the next election. In short, a loss in the Senate trial might be far outweighed by the benefits of the investigations leading up to a House bill of impeachment and the subsequent debate in the Senate trial. A “win” via a loss.
The Republican stalkers of Bill Clinton were well aware that the process of impeachment might well be more significant than the outcome of conviction and removal. After all, the Clinton impeachment was launched with a full expectation that the effort would fail in the Senate. But even so, the House Republicans anticipated that there would be sufficient mischief to be gained by proceeding with a bill of impeachment that they went ahead anyway. What they did not anticipate was that the public at large would be more put-off by the GOP’s partisan shenanigans than by “Slick Willie’s” unrestrained libido.
The Democrats must stop fretting about a likely failure in the Senate and put their eyes on the prize of the results of Congressional investigation, of testimony under oath, and of the unavoidable publicity that would result therefrom. Once the worm-can of Bushevik crimes and treason is opened, those worms will never be re-canned. And who knows, once the high crimes and misdemeanors are exposed to the sunlight of open and public Congressional hearings and debate, the “impossible” Senate conviction just might turn out to be quite possible. After all, all that isB required is the defection of seventeen GOP senators. And bear in mind that twenty-two Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2008. They might find themselves very hard-pressed in their re-election campaigns to justify a vote for acquittal.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
OPEN THE WORM CAN
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written that the Bushes and their cohorts would do anything to stay in power. Part of that determination is that so many scandals are ready to emerge about this administration. It's hard to imagine that there could be even more when you consider the already staggering list of crimes and incompetence. But there are undoubtedly things we still do not know. Many distinguished people are opposed to the idea of impeachment because of its almost certain failure in the Senate. This article makes a good case for impeachment, even if it fails in the Senate, because it will reveal the scope and magnitude of the crimes by this administration. I agree. The article by Ernest Partridge is at www.crisispapers.org:
These skeptics would have a point if Senate conviction and removal from office were the sole objective and consequence of impeachment, as the Republican regulars and their compliant enablers in the mainstream media would have us believe. Once again, by assuming that removal from office is the be-all and end-all of impeachment, the Democrats and many of their progressive supporters and commentators have carelessly consented to play the GOP game by the GOP rules. They have, as George Lakoff might put it, thoughtlessly adopted their opponents’ “framing” of the impeachment issue. They have, to put it bluntly, been suckered again, as they have all too many times in the past. When will they ever learn?
These Democrats, et al, seem to pay little attention to the potential benefits of an unsuccessful impeachment. These benefits include the uncovering and publicizing of the Bushevik crimes and the consequent educating of the public. This would, in turn, lead to the discrediting of the mainstream media and the devastation of the Republican Party, resulting in a Democratic landslide in the next election. In short, a loss in the Senate trial might be far outweighed by the benefits of the investigations leading up to a House bill of impeachment and the subsequent debate in the Senate trial. A “win” via a loss.
The Republican stalkers of Bill Clinton were well aware that the process of impeachment might well be more significant than the outcome of conviction and removal. After all, the Clinton impeachment was launched with a full expectation that the effort would fail in the Senate. But even so, the House Republicans anticipated that there would be sufficient mischief to be gained by proceeding with a bill of impeachment that they went ahead anyway. What they did not anticipate was that the public at large would be more put-off by the GOP’s partisan shenanigans than by “Slick Willie’s” unrestrained libido.
The Democrats must stop fretting about a likely failure in the Senate and put their eyes on the prize of the results of Congressional investigation, of testimony under oath, and of the unavoidable publicity that would result therefrom. Once the worm-can of Bushevik crimes and treason is opened, those worms will never be re-canned. And who knows, once the high crimes and misdemeanors are exposed to the sunlight of open and public Congressional hearings and debate, the “impossible” Senate conviction just might turn out to be quite possible. After all, all that isB required is the defection of seventeen GOP senators. And bear in mind that twenty-two Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2008. They might find themselves very hard-pressed in their re-election campaigns to justify a vote for acquittal.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
March 13, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
AN ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINALS
In a just world someone like George W. Bush and the thugs around him would never achieve high positions in the United States government or anywhere else. These are people who parade around like paragons of virtue while they cheat, lie, torture, and kill. The irony is that they can get away with it because this is the United States, the strongest military power in the world, and it would be difficult to ever try Bush and company for the war crimes they've committed. But maybe they should still be tried, even if it's in absentia. It should be on the record for world history. In this article Bill Gallagher takes a look at the criminals that comprise this administration. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
All the media frenzy about pardoning Scooter Libby is missing a broader issue. Many others in the Bush administration are in need of pardons, and for far more serious crimes. They'll get pardons or head to Canada begging for asylum.
Scooter was caught lying and obstructing justice to protect his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney. It's as simple as that. Cheney ordered the hit on former ambassador Joe Wilson because he dared to speak the truth about the lies used to sell the war in Iraq.
For a political thug like Cheney, Libby taking the fall for him is business as usual. Libby will never spend a single night in prison because President George W. Bush will pardon him right after his sentencing.
There will be howls that the move is aimed at buying Libby's continued silence, but frankly, folks, Bush doesn't give a damn. His failed presidency cannot lose any more support.
PLAYING WAR
I liked the section of this story about a guy who wanted to give Bush toy soldiers so Bush could play war and leave the rest of the world alone. He also wanted to give the Mexican president a mat so the Mexican president could kneel without hurting his knees. The story is mostly about Bush's fixation on food. It reminds you of the incident in Europe where Bush uttered a profanity over a microphone and was obsessed with roast pig. What a leader! This story by Traci Carl is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Gerardo Fernandez flew to Merida to deliver gifts to Bush and Calderon. But he wasn't exactly welcome.
The spokesman for Mexico's leftist Democratic Revolution Party brought a bag of toy soldiers for Bush so that the U.S. leader "can play war and leave the world alone." For Calderon, he brought a door mat so the Mexican president "can kneel without hurting his knees."
He tried to deliver the soldiers to Bush's hotel on Monday evening, just before Bush arrived, but wasn't allowed past security. So he climbed the rusty, 10-foot-high metal barrier and tossed the plastic toys over, to the puzzled looks of security guards on the other side.
On Tuesday, he was still carrying the door mat, leading a one-man quest to the hacienda where Bush and Calderon were meeting. He soon hit another security barrier there.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
AN ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINALS
In a just world someone like George W. Bush and the thugs around him would never achieve high positions in the United States government or anywhere else. These are people who parade around like paragons of virtue while they cheat, lie, torture, and kill. The irony is that they can get away with it because this is the United States, the strongest military power in the world, and it would be difficult to ever try Bush and company for the war crimes they've committed. But maybe they should still be tried, even if it's in absentia. It should be on the record for world history. In this article Bill Gallagher takes a look at the criminals that comprise this administration. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
All the media frenzy about pardoning Scooter Libby is missing a broader issue. Many others in the Bush administration are in need of pardons, and for far more serious crimes. They'll get pardons or head to Canada begging for asylum.
Scooter was caught lying and obstructing justice to protect his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney. It's as simple as that. Cheney ordered the hit on former ambassador Joe Wilson because he dared to speak the truth about the lies used to sell the war in Iraq.
For a political thug like Cheney, Libby taking the fall for him is business as usual. Libby will never spend a single night in prison because President George W. Bush will pardon him right after his sentencing.
There will be howls that the move is aimed at buying Libby's continued silence, but frankly, folks, Bush doesn't give a damn. His failed presidency cannot lose any more support.
PLAYING WAR
I liked the section of this story about a guy who wanted to give Bush toy soldiers so Bush could play war and leave the rest of the world alone. He also wanted to give the Mexican president a mat so the Mexican president could kneel without hurting his knees. The story is mostly about Bush's fixation on food. It reminds you of the incident in Europe where Bush uttered a profanity over a microphone and was obsessed with roast pig. What a leader! This story by Traci Carl is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Gerardo Fernandez flew to Merida to deliver gifts to Bush and Calderon. But he wasn't exactly welcome.
The spokesman for Mexico's leftist Democratic Revolution Party brought a bag of toy soldiers for Bush so that the U.S. leader "can play war and leave the world alone." For Calderon, he brought a door mat so the Mexican president "can kneel without hurting his knees."
He tried to deliver the soldiers to Bush's hotel on Monday evening, just before Bush arrived, but wasn't allowed past security. So he climbed the rusty, 10-foot-high metal barrier and tossed the plastic toys over, to the puzzled looks of security guards on the other side.
On Tuesday, he was still carrying the door mat, leading a one-man quest to the hacienda where Bush and Calderon were meeting. He soon hit another security barrier there.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
March 11, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NOT MUCH RELIGIOUS LITERACY
Right-wingers like to proclaim that the United States is a Christian country that was founded on the beliefs of Judeo-Christian theology. It makes you wonder, then, why Americans are so illiterate about the Bible they claim to devoutly believe. This article shows how religiously illiterate most Americans are. The article by Cathy Lynn Grossman is at www.usatoday.com:
Sometimes dumb sounds cute: Sixty percent of Americans can't name five of the Ten Commandments, and 50% of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.
Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University, isn't laughing. Americans' deep ignorance of world religions — their own, their neighbors' or the combatants in Iraq, Darfur or Kashmir — is dangerous, he says.
His new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — and Doesn't, argues that everyone needs to grasp Bible basics, as well as the core beliefs, stories, symbols and heroes of other faiths.
Belief is not his business, says Prothero, who grew up Episcopalian and now says he's a spiritually "confused Christian." He says his argument is for empowered citizenship.
"More and more of our national and international questions are religiously inflected," he says, citing President Bush's speeches laden with biblical references and the furor when the first Muslim member of Congress chose to be sworn in with his right hand on Thomas Jefferson's Quran.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NOT MUCH RELIGIOUS LITERACY
Right-wingers like to proclaim that the United States is a Christian country that was founded on the beliefs of Judeo-Christian theology. It makes you wonder, then, why Americans are so illiterate about the Bible they claim to devoutly believe. This article shows how religiously illiterate most Americans are. The article by Cathy Lynn Grossman is at www.usatoday.com:
Sometimes dumb sounds cute: Sixty percent of Americans can't name five of the Ten Commandments, and 50% of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.
Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University, isn't laughing. Americans' deep ignorance of world religions — their own, their neighbors' or the combatants in Iraq, Darfur or Kashmir — is dangerous, he says.
His new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — and Doesn't, argues that everyone needs to grasp Bible basics, as well as the core beliefs, stories, symbols and heroes of other faiths.
Belief is not his business, says Prothero, who grew up Episcopalian and now says he's a spiritually "confused Christian." He says his argument is for empowered citizenship.
"More and more of our national and international questions are religiously inflected," he says, citing President Bush's speeches laden with biblical references and the furor when the first Muslim member of Congress chose to be sworn in with his right hand on Thomas Jefferson's Quran.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
March 10, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
REAGAN AND DECLINE OF FAMILY
Right-wingers like to attribute the "decline of the traditional family" to the 1960's, that supposedly decadent decade where permissiveness reigned. But studies show it was the during the time of Ronald Reagan and the "greed is good" eighties that the social structure of the family radically began to change. Traditional families and economic stability are much related, and the economic changes that began during the Reagan years have destroyed economic stability for working class people. This article by Harold Meyerson is at www.prospect.org:
As conservatives tell the tale, the decline of the American family, the rise in divorce rates, and the number of children born out of wedlock all can be traced to the pernicious influence of one decade in American history: the '60s.
The conservatives are right that one decade, at least in its metaphoric significance, can encapsulate the causes for the family's decline. But they've misidentified the decade. It's not the permissive '60s. It's the Reagan '80s.
In Saturday's Washington Post, reporter Blaine Harden took a hard look at the erosion of what we have long taken to be the model American family -- married couples with children -- and discovered that while this decline hasn't really afflicted college-educated professionals, it is the curse of the working class. The percentage of households that are married couples with children has hit an all-time low (at least, the lowest since the Census Bureau started measuring such things): 23.7 percent. That's about half the level that marrieds-with-children constituted at the end of the Ozzie-and-Harriet '50s.
Now, I'm not a scholar of the sitcom, but I did watch "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" as a child, marveling that anything labeled "Adventures" could be so dull. And I don't recall a single episode in which the family had to do without because Ozzie had lost his job or missed taking David or Ricky to the doctor for fear he couldn't pay for it.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
REAGAN AND DECLINE OF FAMILY
Right-wingers like to attribute the "decline of the traditional family" to the 1960's, that supposedly decadent decade where permissiveness reigned. But studies show it was the during the time of Ronald Reagan and the "greed is good" eighties that the social structure of the family radically began to change. Traditional families and economic stability are much related, and the economic changes that began during the Reagan years have destroyed economic stability for working class people. This article by Harold Meyerson is at www.prospect.org:
As conservatives tell the tale, the decline of the American family, the rise in divorce rates, and the number of children born out of wedlock all can be traced to the pernicious influence of one decade in American history: the '60s.
The conservatives are right that one decade, at least in its metaphoric significance, can encapsulate the causes for the family's decline. But they've misidentified the decade. It's not the permissive '60s. It's the Reagan '80s.
In Saturday's Washington Post, reporter Blaine Harden took a hard look at the erosion of what we have long taken to be the model American family -- married couples with children -- and discovered that while this decline hasn't really afflicted college-educated professionals, it is the curse of the working class. The percentage of households that are married couples with children has hit an all-time low (at least, the lowest since the Census Bureau started measuring such things): 23.7 percent. That's about half the level that marrieds-with-children constituted at the end of the Ozzie-and-Harriet '50s.
Now, I'm not a scholar of the sitcom, but I did watch "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" as a child, marveling that anything labeled "Adventures" could be so dull. And I don't recall a single episode in which the family had to do without because Ozzie had lost his job or missed taking David or Ricky to the doctor for fear he couldn't pay for it.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
March 08, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MORAL OBLIGATION TO IMPEACH
It's almost like living in the Twilight Zone these days. Lewis "Scooter" Libby gets convicted of outing a CIA agent, of compromising our national security, and there are people already calling for Libby's pardon. Even though Bush and Cheney have a list of crimes as long as your arm, we keep getting told about the difficulties of impeaching them. I believe there is a moral obligation to impeach them. If Libby gets pardoned, if Bush and Cheney do not get impeached, it sets a precedent that people in high places are not accountable for the things they do. The Founding Fathers put impeachment into the Constitution as the mechanism against despotic members of the government. If we don't impeach these guys, why not just amend the Constitution to take out the impeachment option altogether? This commentary by Jay Esbe is at www.opednews.com:
Bush’s so-called “signing statements” are alone worthy of causing his impeachment, for they evidence an open and willful refusal to recognize and abide in the law. They are a strict violation of the oath of office and are in fact nothing short of declarations of sedition against the Constitution and Republic. In addition to this, if falsifying intelligence, covering up exculpatory intelligence for the purposes of starting a major war with tens of thousands of American casualties, systematic kidnapping and torture in violation of international law, warrantless wiretapping, and retribution against anyone who exposes acts of high treason –Joe Wilson- which damage national security isn’t a long enough list of serious crimes to warrant impeachment, no crime or crimes committed by an executive ever will be. We are talking about the largest crimes ever committed in the name of the American people, with the most serious -national security, life and death- consequences in our history.
The Democrats must be forced to uphold the law and to act on behalf of a damaged American people. The crimes committed by this administration were not only against the international community and the laws to which it is constitutionally bound as signatories, but are high crimes against the American people collectively. The crimes were committed in our names. We are obligated to end them. There will be consequences of the highest magnitude if the Democratic majority in Congress continues to refuse to act.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MORAL OBLIGATION TO IMPEACH
It's almost like living in the Twilight Zone these days. Lewis "Scooter" Libby gets convicted of outing a CIA agent, of compromising our national security, and there are people already calling for Libby's pardon. Even though Bush and Cheney have a list of crimes as long as your arm, we keep getting told about the difficulties of impeaching them. I believe there is a moral obligation to impeach them. If Libby gets pardoned, if Bush and Cheney do not get impeached, it sets a precedent that people in high places are not accountable for the things they do. The Founding Fathers put impeachment into the Constitution as the mechanism against despotic members of the government. If we don't impeach these guys, why not just amend the Constitution to take out the impeachment option altogether? This commentary by Jay Esbe is at www.opednews.com:
Bush’s so-called “signing statements” are alone worthy of causing his impeachment, for they evidence an open and willful refusal to recognize and abide in the law. They are a strict violation of the oath of office and are in fact nothing short of declarations of sedition against the Constitution and Republic. In addition to this, if falsifying intelligence, covering up exculpatory intelligence for the purposes of starting a major war with tens of thousands of American casualties, systematic kidnapping and torture in violation of international law, warrantless wiretapping, and retribution against anyone who exposes acts of high treason –Joe Wilson- which damage national security isn’t a long enough list of serious crimes to warrant impeachment, no crime or crimes committed by an executive ever will be. We are talking about the largest crimes ever committed in the name of the American people, with the most serious -national security, life and death- consequences in our history.
The Democrats must be forced to uphold the law and to act on behalf of a damaged American people. The crimes committed by this administration were not only against the international community and the laws to which it is constitutionally bound as signatories, but are high crimes against the American people collectively. The crimes were committed in our names. We are obligated to end them. There will be consequences of the highest magnitude if the Democratic majority in Congress continues to refuse to act.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
March 07, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT-WINGERS ARE ALWAYS WRONG
I've come to the conclusion that right-wing rhetoric is a little like an algebraic equation. Everything works in inverse proportion. The more right-wingers advocate something (tax cuts for the rich, privatizing Social Security, school vouchers) the worse it is. The more they demonize something (the progressive income tax, action against global warming, ending the war in Iraq) the better it is. We've had all kinds of hot air, appropriately, from right-wingers about global warming. It's cyclical, they claim. The earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles throughout its history. Alas, there's nothing to be done. Or it's a conspiracy to kill the U. S. economy. If we can't pollute to our heart's content, it's the death knell for good old Americanism. Now right-wingers are saying that technology will save us in a few years. We can just keep doing what we're doing now. That's ironic coming from people who oppose technology like stem cell research, but that's a separate issue. In this column David Roberts looks at the pontifications of right-wing gas bag Jonah Goldberg. The column is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Add it all up, and you've got the new conventional wisdom of the conservative commentariat on global warming: we can't do anything about it now, but we'll be able to magically lick it in 10 years, so let's just wait. Let's do nothing.
Thus has a movement that once promised us morning in America been reduced to timidity and defeatism. Thus has a profoundly entitled legacy hire in the Republican pundit class, like so many of his prep-school comrades, gotten it diametrically wrong on the two signal issues of our generation: the neoconservative military reshaping of the Middle East, and degradation of the planet's life-support systems. In both cases, their mistakes are driven by fear -- fear and its offspring: selfishness, paranoia, and myopia.
For the record, and briefly:
* While environmental degradation frequently provides local, short-term environmental stimulus, those benefits pale before the collective long-term costs. In virtually every case, environmental health and remediation redound to the common good.
* We did not simply adopt the cost of global warming in exchange for our wealth. We Westerners imposed the costs of global warming on the world, primarily parts of the world that have received little wealth in exchange. Though we face only a small fraction of the costs, we bear primary moral and economic responsibility for this externality of our extraordinary blessings.
* The corporatist party has been screeching like Chicken Little at every proposed regulation for the last century; American entrepreneurial ingenuity always renders the doom-mongering moot. They really think the vaunted American economy could not adapt to Kyoto?
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT-WINGERS ARE ALWAYS WRONG
I've come to the conclusion that right-wing rhetoric is a little like an algebraic equation. Everything works in inverse proportion. The more right-wingers advocate something (tax cuts for the rich, privatizing Social Security, school vouchers) the worse it is. The more they demonize something (the progressive income tax, action against global warming, ending the war in Iraq) the better it is. We've had all kinds of hot air, appropriately, from right-wingers about global warming. It's cyclical, they claim. The earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles throughout its history. Alas, there's nothing to be done. Or it's a conspiracy to kill the U. S. economy. If we can't pollute to our heart's content, it's the death knell for good old Americanism. Now right-wingers are saying that technology will save us in a few years. We can just keep doing what we're doing now. That's ironic coming from people who oppose technology like stem cell research, but that's a separate issue. In this column David Roberts looks at the pontifications of right-wing gas bag Jonah Goldberg. The column is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Add it all up, and you've got the new conventional wisdom of the conservative commentariat on global warming: we can't do anything about it now, but we'll be able to magically lick it in 10 years, so let's just wait. Let's do nothing.
Thus has a movement that once promised us morning in America been reduced to timidity and defeatism. Thus has a profoundly entitled legacy hire in the Republican pundit class, like so many of his prep-school comrades, gotten it diametrically wrong on the two signal issues of our generation: the neoconservative military reshaping of the Middle East, and degradation of the planet's life-support systems. In both cases, their mistakes are driven by fear -- fear and its offspring: selfishness, paranoia, and myopia.
For the record, and briefly:
* While environmental degradation frequently provides local, short-term environmental stimulus, those benefits pale before the collective long-term costs. In virtually every case, environmental health and remediation redound to the common good.
* We did not simply adopt the cost of global warming in exchange for our wealth. We Westerners imposed the costs of global warming on the world, primarily parts of the world that have received little wealth in exchange. Though we face only a small fraction of the costs, we bear primary moral and economic responsibility for this externality of our extraordinary blessings.
* The corporatist party has been screeching like Chicken Little at every proposed regulation for the last century; American entrepreneurial ingenuity always renders the doom-mongering moot. They really think the vaunted American economy could not adapt to Kyoto?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
March 06, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MAKE IT EASIER TO FORM UNIONS
In the business world there is a lot of anti-union propaganda. When I worked for one company a few years ago the warehouse workers were talking about unionizing. The company president called us into the conference room and talked about the horrors of a union, including the fact the union president made more money than he did. The company installed a security fence around the parking lot, implying that union organizers might get violent. I saw a guy wearing an anti-union tee shirt. The attempt to unionize failed. Everyone who works for wages should look at the history of unions and be grateful for all the benefits unions got us. Paid holidays, paid vacations, sick leave, the eight-hour day, and other benefits came about largely because of unions. When the middle class was strong and growing the union movement was also strong. I like the proposal currently being advocated to make it easier for employees to form unions. This article by Jonathan Chait is at www.latimes.com:
Every argument I've seen against card-check unfailingly mentions the long decline in union membership. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who sits on the House Education and Labor Committee, noted in an anti-card-check screed that union membership is "down to 12% nationwide." Yes, it's true, union membership in the U.S. has hemorrhaged. What I don't see is why that is a point against card-check. To me, it suggests just the opposite: Unions are so weak that we have little to fear from a small uptick in membership. Suppose union membership was exploding and there was some danger the American economy was going the direction of France, where it's impossible to fire anybody. That might be a good reason to oppose the spread of unionism.
But the real problem in the American economy is not that workers have too much bargaining power. It's that they have too little. Corporate profits have exploded in recent years, while wages for average workers have barely budged. It's obviously great that business is doing so well. What we need are a few measures to help divvy up the pie just a bit more evenly. Anything that helps to slow down the massive erosion of unions is one of those sensible, small steps.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MAKE IT EASIER TO FORM UNIONS
In the business world there is a lot of anti-union propaganda. When I worked for one company a few years ago the warehouse workers were talking about unionizing. The company president called us into the conference room and talked about the horrors of a union, including the fact the union president made more money than he did. The company installed a security fence around the parking lot, implying that union organizers might get violent. I saw a guy wearing an anti-union tee shirt. The attempt to unionize failed. Everyone who works for wages should look at the history of unions and be grateful for all the benefits unions got us. Paid holidays, paid vacations, sick leave, the eight-hour day, and other benefits came about largely because of unions. When the middle class was strong and growing the union movement was also strong. I like the proposal currently being advocated to make it easier for employees to form unions. This article by Jonathan Chait is at www.latimes.com:
Every argument I've seen against card-check unfailingly mentions the long decline in union membership. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who sits on the House Education and Labor Committee, noted in an anti-card-check screed that union membership is "down to 12% nationwide." Yes, it's true, union membership in the U.S. has hemorrhaged. What I don't see is why that is a point against card-check. To me, it suggests just the opposite: Unions are so weak that we have little to fear from a small uptick in membership. Suppose union membership was exploding and there was some danger the American economy was going the direction of France, where it's impossible to fire anybody. That might be a good reason to oppose the spread of unionism.
But the real problem in the American economy is not that workers have too much bargaining power. It's that they have too little. Corporate profits have exploded in recent years, while wages for average workers have barely budged. It's obviously great that business is doing so well. What we need are a few measures to help divvy up the pie just a bit more evenly. Anything that helps to slow down the massive erosion of unions is one of those sensible, small steps.
Monday, March 05, 2007
March 05, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
KATRINA AND WALTER REED
There are so many scandals and such gross incompetence in the Bush administration you almost find yourself with outrage fatigue. But we should let the fire continue to build. We need to oust this filthy administration and remember all the lessons from the past six years. As Paul Krugman points out, the treatment of the wounded Iraq veterans at Walter Reed is very much like the way the administration treated the victims of Hurricane Katrina. This administration pinches pennies for people like you and me, but showers largesse on the rich and powerful. This column is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.com:
Yet even now it’s not clear whether the public will be told the full story, which is that the horrors of Walter Reed’s outpatient unit are no aberration. For all its cries of “support the troops,” the Bush administration has treated veterans’ medical care the same way it treats everything else: nickel-and-diming the needy, protecting the incompetent and privatizing everything it can.
What makes this a particular shame is that in the Clinton years, veterans’ health care — like the Federal Emergency Management Agency — became a shining example of how good leadership can revitalize a troubled government program. By the early years of this decade the Veterans Health Administration was, by many measures, providing the highest-quality health care in America. (It probably still is: Walter Reed is a military facility, not run by the V.H.A.)
But as with FEMA, the Bush administration has done all it can to undermine that achievement. And the Walter Reed scandal is another Hurricane Katrina: the moment when the administration’s misgovernment became obvious to everyone.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
KATRINA AND WALTER REED
There are so many scandals and such gross incompetence in the Bush administration you almost find yourself with outrage fatigue. But we should let the fire continue to build. We need to oust this filthy administration and remember all the lessons from the past six years. As Paul Krugman points out, the treatment of the wounded Iraq veterans at Walter Reed is very much like the way the administration treated the victims of Hurricane Katrina. This administration pinches pennies for people like you and me, but showers largesse on the rich and powerful. This column is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.com:
Yet even now it’s not clear whether the public will be told the full story, which is that the horrors of Walter Reed’s outpatient unit are no aberration. For all its cries of “support the troops,” the Bush administration has treated veterans’ medical care the same way it treats everything else: nickel-and-diming the needy, protecting the incompetent and privatizing everything it can.
What makes this a particular shame is that in the Clinton years, veterans’ health care — like the Federal Emergency Management Agency — became a shining example of how good leadership can revitalize a troubled government program. By the early years of this decade the Veterans Health Administration was, by many measures, providing the highest-quality health care in America. (It probably still is: Walter Reed is a military facility, not run by the V.H.A.)
But as with FEMA, the Bush administration has done all it can to undermine that achievement. And the Walter Reed scandal is another Hurricane Katrina: the moment when the administration’s misgovernment became obvious to everyone.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
March 04, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HONEY BEES DISAPPEARING
Some of the scariest movies ever made deal with nature gone awry. You think of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, for example. Now we have a real life natural disaster occurring in the insect world. Honey bees are mysteriously disappearing. It's a major issue because honey bees pollinate plants and pollination is integral to the life cycle. This story is also interesting because The New York Times published a story about a farmer in Visalia, California, right here in the Central Valley. This commentary by Stephen Fleischman is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
It may not be a nuclear war or global warming that brings us down, but the mysterious disappearance of the honey bee. We've been messing with nature since Adam plucked the first piece of fruit off the apple tree.
The New York Times, on Feb 23rd, reported on a beekeeper named David Bradshaw in Visalia, California who got the shock of his life when he opened his boxes one morning and found half of his 100 million bees missing. His bees had been pollinating the almond crop in the Central Valley, the world's largest almond producing area.
The honey bee, apis mellifera, is the most commonly domesticated species in the United States and is used not only for producing honey, but more importantly for pollinating crops. Hence, the consternation when it was discovered recently that bees in 24 states across the country were mysteriously disappearing. The bees leave their hives to seek pollen and nectar and in the process pollinate the blossoms of the crop. But these bees never return to the hive and the colony becomes defunct. The phenomenon has been given the name, "Colony Collapse Disorder". The scientists are scratching their heads. They don't understand what's happening here. At least, not yet.
CHANTING LA-LA-LA
Today's Fresno Bee had another letter from a right-winger who just doesn't believe global climate change is real. We've had cycles of warming and ice ages in the past, he says. His big point was the alleged hypocrisy of people at the Academy Awards last week. Even if Hollywood stars are not perfectly "green," how is that relevant to the issue of global climate change?
People who bring up the point about cycles of heating and warming in the past don't seem to realize that scientists are perfectly aware of those cycles. And it is scientists who are saying that the evidence is indisputable that human activity is warming the planet. If we build a dam, aren't we altering the environment? If we strip mine a mountain, aren't we altering the environment? Those events are small scale in comparison to sending tons and tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere every day. As Newton's Law about the conservation of energy established, there is no free lunch. What we do has an effect on the planet. But it's easier for global climate change deniers to stick their fingers in their ears and chant la-la-la very loudly.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HONEY BEES DISAPPEARING
Some of the scariest movies ever made deal with nature gone awry. You think of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, for example. Now we have a real life natural disaster occurring in the insect world. Honey bees are mysteriously disappearing. It's a major issue because honey bees pollinate plants and pollination is integral to the life cycle. This story is also interesting because The New York Times published a story about a farmer in Visalia, California, right here in the Central Valley. This commentary by Stephen Fleischman is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
It may not be a nuclear war or global warming that brings us down, but the mysterious disappearance of the honey bee. We've been messing with nature since Adam plucked the first piece of fruit off the apple tree.
The New York Times, on Feb 23rd, reported on a beekeeper named David Bradshaw in Visalia, California who got the shock of his life when he opened his boxes one morning and found half of his 100 million bees missing. His bees had been pollinating the almond crop in the Central Valley, the world's largest almond producing area.
The honey bee, apis mellifera, is the most commonly domesticated species in the United States and is used not only for producing honey, but more importantly for pollinating crops. Hence, the consternation when it was discovered recently that bees in 24 states across the country were mysteriously disappearing. The bees leave their hives to seek pollen and nectar and in the process pollinate the blossoms of the crop. But these bees never return to the hive and the colony becomes defunct. The phenomenon has been given the name, "Colony Collapse Disorder". The scientists are scratching their heads. They don't understand what's happening here. At least, not yet.
CHANTING LA-LA-LA
Today's Fresno Bee had another letter from a right-winger who just doesn't believe global climate change is real. We've had cycles of warming and ice ages in the past, he says. His big point was the alleged hypocrisy of people at the Academy Awards last week. Even if Hollywood stars are not perfectly "green," how is that relevant to the issue of global climate change?
People who bring up the point about cycles of heating and warming in the past don't seem to realize that scientists are perfectly aware of those cycles. And it is scientists who are saying that the evidence is indisputable that human activity is warming the planet. If we build a dam, aren't we altering the environment? If we strip mine a mountain, aren't we altering the environment? Those events are small scale in comparison to sending tons and tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere every day. As Newton's Law about the conservation of energy established, there is no free lunch. What we do has an effect on the planet. But it's easier for global climate change deniers to stick their fingers in their ears and chant la-la-la very loudly.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
March 03, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
"SPINELESS DEMOCRATS"
There are occasional letters to The Fresno Bee that provoke mixed feelings. Today there is a letter from a Nader supporter. The writer said he voted for Nader twice. He charges the Democrats with being "spineless." We should point out that charge is not true for all Democrats. John Murtha stood up against the Iraq war when it wasn't politically popular. People like Russ Feingold have stood up against the Republican machine.
I have been disappointed in the past failures to contest the Bush administration. Democrats didn't stand up against some of Bush's despicable nominees such as John Ashcroft for Attorney General. They didn't stop rotten Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They've gone along with heinous legislation such as the bankruptcy bill that was a gift to credit card companies.
And yet you have to acknowledge some realities about the American political system too. The media are a major part of American politics now. The media are now owned lock, stock, and barrel by people who essentially support reactionary policies. They cheerlead war, they support globalization, they resist doing anything about climate change, they get on board with low wages and job outsourcing, and they contribute to unmercifully smearing opponents.
Our system of government was designed in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. For the most part, it has been a very good system. Checks and balances is a wonderful concept. But the Founders couldn't foresee nuclear weapons or the alliance of big religion, big corporations, and government. We have the dilemma of needing the president and military to act rapidly to deal with military threats, even though funding and authorization for war is supposed to come from the Congress. So that "check" of the executive branch has been eroded by the pace of modern times. It has allowed presidents like Bush to commit troops and put Congress into a bind of "supporting the troops" or leaving them in imminent danger. If you're under the shadow of a nuclear attack, you don't have time to examine all the nuances. For the system to work, the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence communities have to have integrity and competence.
The Democrats also faced the problem of being in the minority for most of this administration. You can't do much as a minority party. I believe Democrats who voted for this war did so based on lies told to them by the administration. But even if they had voted against the war, it would have gone on because the Republicans in power rubber stamped everything the administration wanted.
The past few years have revealed major weaknesses in our system of government. We need a better way to check executive power, while giving presidents enough leeway to respond to genuine emergencies. We need to get the power of corporations and big donors out of government. We need people in power who truly represent all of their constituents, not just the big donors.
We need to do what works for the majority of us, even if there are those who would call it "socialistic." There is a crying need, for example, for universal health care. We need to break away from dependence on fossil fuels. We need for Americans to be as educated as our economic competitors around the world. We need more of a sense of community, not just the individualistic looking out for number one ethos that has come to dominate our society.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
"SPINELESS DEMOCRATS"
There are occasional letters to The Fresno Bee that provoke mixed feelings. Today there is a letter from a Nader supporter. The writer said he voted for Nader twice. He charges the Democrats with being "spineless." We should point out that charge is not true for all Democrats. John Murtha stood up against the Iraq war when it wasn't politically popular. People like Russ Feingold have stood up against the Republican machine.
I have been disappointed in the past failures to contest the Bush administration. Democrats didn't stand up against some of Bush's despicable nominees such as John Ashcroft for Attorney General. They didn't stop rotten Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They've gone along with heinous legislation such as the bankruptcy bill that was a gift to credit card companies.
And yet you have to acknowledge some realities about the American political system too. The media are a major part of American politics now. The media are now owned lock, stock, and barrel by people who essentially support reactionary policies. They cheerlead war, they support globalization, they resist doing anything about climate change, they get on board with low wages and job outsourcing, and they contribute to unmercifully smearing opponents.
Our system of government was designed in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. For the most part, it has been a very good system. Checks and balances is a wonderful concept. But the Founders couldn't foresee nuclear weapons or the alliance of big religion, big corporations, and government. We have the dilemma of needing the president and military to act rapidly to deal with military threats, even though funding and authorization for war is supposed to come from the Congress. So that "check" of the executive branch has been eroded by the pace of modern times. It has allowed presidents like Bush to commit troops and put Congress into a bind of "supporting the troops" or leaving them in imminent danger. If you're under the shadow of a nuclear attack, you don't have time to examine all the nuances. For the system to work, the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence communities have to have integrity and competence.
The Democrats also faced the problem of being in the minority for most of this administration. You can't do much as a minority party. I believe Democrats who voted for this war did so based on lies told to them by the administration. But even if they had voted against the war, it would have gone on because the Republicans in power rubber stamped everything the administration wanted.
The past few years have revealed major weaknesses in our system of government. We need a better way to check executive power, while giving presidents enough leeway to respond to genuine emergencies. We need to get the power of corporations and big donors out of government. We need people in power who truly represent all of their constituents, not just the big donors.
We need to do what works for the majority of us, even if there are those who would call it "socialistic." There is a crying need, for example, for universal health care. We need to break away from dependence on fossil fuels. We need for Americans to be as educated as our economic competitors around the world. We need more of a sense of community, not just the individualistic looking out for number one ethos that has come to dominate our society.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
March 01, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TRASH THE "BUSH DOCTRINE"
The Bush Doctrine is a little like saying the guy down the street has a gun, I don't like the guy, he may use the gun against me someday, and I'm going to get him first. That defense wouldn't work in any court of law. But Bush announced a doctrine of "preventive war" after the attacks on 9/11, and Congress went along with it. It's time to retire the Bush Doctrine to the garbage bin of history. This article by Andrew J. Bacevich is at www.commondreams.org:
In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that "authorized" the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing anyway. Implicitly, the Bush Doctrine received congressional endorsement.
Events since have affirmed the wisdom of seeing preventive war as immoral, illicit, and imprudent. The Bush administration expected a quick, economical, and decisive victory in Iraq. Advertising the war as an effort to topple a brutal dictator and liberate an oppressed people, it no doubt counted on battlefield success to endow the enterprise with a certain ex post facto legitimacy. Elated Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers and candies would silence critics who condemned the war as morally unjustified and patently illegal.
None of these expectations has come to pass. In its trial run, the Bush Doctrine has been found wanting.
Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths.
Our folly has alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak.
GOSH, RIGHT-WINGERS ARE STUPID
Recently it was announced that our local Air America affiliate KFPT is being sold. The new owners intend to change the format to sports. Some people, including me, are disappointed that an alternative to the right-wing gasbags isn't going to be available locally. Predictably, a right-wing moron wrote The Fresno Bee exulting in the change of format, saying that listeners abandoned Air America because of "lies," and even suggested that the major news anchors, including Brian Williams, are liberal. As a liberal, I can say with assurance that Brian Williams is no liberal. It's much easier, of course, to brand everything that doesn't come out of Limbaugh's or Hannity's mouths as "lies" because it contradicts the tidy little black and white world of ignorant reactionaries.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TRASH THE "BUSH DOCTRINE"
The Bush Doctrine is a little like saying the guy down the street has a gun, I don't like the guy, he may use the gun against me someday, and I'm going to get him first. That defense wouldn't work in any court of law. But Bush announced a doctrine of "preventive war" after the attacks on 9/11, and Congress went along with it. It's time to retire the Bush Doctrine to the garbage bin of history. This article by Andrew J. Bacevich is at www.commondreams.org:
In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that "authorized" the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing anyway. Implicitly, the Bush Doctrine received congressional endorsement.
Events since have affirmed the wisdom of seeing preventive war as immoral, illicit, and imprudent. The Bush administration expected a quick, economical, and decisive victory in Iraq. Advertising the war as an effort to topple a brutal dictator and liberate an oppressed people, it no doubt counted on battlefield success to endow the enterprise with a certain ex post facto legitimacy. Elated Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers and candies would silence critics who condemned the war as morally unjustified and patently illegal.
None of these expectations has come to pass. In its trial run, the Bush Doctrine has been found wanting.
Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths.
Our folly has alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak.
GOSH, RIGHT-WINGERS ARE STUPID
Recently it was announced that our local Air America affiliate KFPT is being sold. The new owners intend to change the format to sports. Some people, including me, are disappointed that an alternative to the right-wing gasbags isn't going to be available locally. Predictably, a right-wing moron wrote The Fresno Bee exulting in the change of format, saying that listeners abandoned Air America because of "lies," and even suggested that the major news anchors, including Brian Williams, are liberal. As a liberal, I can say with assurance that Brian Williams is no liberal. It's much easier, of course, to brand everything that doesn't come out of Limbaugh's or Hannity's mouths as "lies" because it contradicts the tidy little black and white world of ignorant reactionaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)