June 30, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

CEASELESSLY BACK TO THE PAST

When you look at the horrendous rulings of the Supreme Court in the past few months you think of a line from F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby about being "borne back ceaselessly into the past." Right-wing ideologues have this vision of a mythical utopia that existed before government took steps to make the justice system fairer, to address racial discrimination, to deal with monopolies, to give working people some rights, and so on. Now landmark Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are in danger and we will lurch back into the past. This article by Brent Budowsky is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:

The United States Supreme Court is moving to reverse long-cherished American notions of constitutional law.

The divisions that plague American society have invaded the sanctity of the court, with angry dissents and at times personal criticism among justices that illustrate both the passions and dangers of the debate.

These events escalate a pattern of extreme actions that violate cardinal American ideals on matters including torture, the Geneva Convention, attacks on the Bill of Rights, presidential assertions of authority to violate statutes with non-binding statements, secrecy of unprecedented scope, the inability of Congress to perform its historic function of preventing executive abuse, and now a bitterly divided Supreme Court that threatens values long thought to be part of our national consensus…

We can no longer believe that Brown v. Board of Education establishes a national consensus on policies that promote integration versus those that tolerate segregation.

THE REAGAN MYTHOLOGY

Another golden age, according to right-wingers, was the administration of Ronald Reagan. I lived through those years, and they weren't that wonderful. Reagan's administration, like that of George W. Bush, was shot full of corruption. Massive transfers of wealth went to the economic elite. Poverty rose. The so-called jobs created during that time were mostly illusory. This article by Susan J. Douglas is at www.inthesetimes.com:

While much of the neocon agenda is in tatters right now, certainly one of its most successful achievements has been the canonization of Ronald Reagan, which rests crucially on one thing Reagan himself did so well: forgetting the facts. So it’s time to exhume a few.

First to go is the myth that Reagan was the most popular president since FDR. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting reminds us, “During the first two years of Reagan’s presidency, the public was giving President Reagan the lowest level of approval of all modern elected presidents. Reagan’s average first-year approval rating was 58 percent—lower than Dwight Eisenhower’s 69 percent, Jack Kennedy’s 75 percent, Richard Nixon’s 61 percent and Jimmy Carter’s 62 percent.” At the end of his second year, (remember the Reagan recession?) Reagan’s approval rating was 41 percent; after the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed, Reagan’s approval rating stood at 46 percent. His approval rating for his entire presidency was lower than Kennedy’s, Eisenhower’s and even Johnson’s, and at times he was one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history.

June 27, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

BUSH'S OILY HANDS

When the history of the Bush administration is written Bush and Cheney's connection to the oil industry should figure prominently. The Iraq war was mostly about oil. Domestic policy has been driven by policies to favor the oil and gas industry, even at the expense of the environment. The resistance to doing something about global climate change is also connected to the oil and gas industry. This article by Bob Burtman is at www.motherjones.com:

Four months after former oil executives George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took office, the administration issued an executive order calling on all federal agencies to "expedite energy-related projects." Since then, officials have been speeding approval of oil and gas wells throughout the Rocky Mountain states. In Colorado, the BLM is revising land-use plans on 77,000 undeveloped acres in Vermillion Basin, the first step before drilling can be approved on land the agency previously recommended for wilderness status. In New Mexico, similar revisions could open up 160,000 acres of grasslands in the Otero Mesa region, threatening the habitat of pronghorn antelope, falcons, hawks, and bobcats. And in Wyoming and Montana, the administration supports plans to develop 51,000 wells to extract methane gas from shallow coal beds in the Powder River Basin -- a process that even the BLM's own studies conclude could poison wildlife, kill vegetation, and crisscross the area with 20,000 miles of pipeline, 5,300 miles of power lines, and 17,000 miles of roads.

"The president, vice president, and their corporate friends are trying to drill into everything," says Ken Sleight, a longtime environmental activist who runs a guest ranch in the foothills of the snow-capped La Sal Mountains outside Moab. "They don't care about the value of wildlands. Bush has zeroed in on southern Utah, but he has no idea what he will destroy."

June 25, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

CHENEY THE TORTURER

As we learn more and more about the nefarious Dick Cheney, you have to wonder how the United States allowed monsters like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to acquire so much power. We allowed them to steal a presidential election in 2000. Congress rolled over like a puppy dog and let them whatever do they wanted after the attacks on 9/11. Suddenly, all that the United States had ever stood for wasn't applicable anymore. We didn't have to observe international treaties. We could "preemptively" attack countries. We could kidnap people who were suspected terrorists, no matter where they were in the world. And we could torture. The Geneva Conventions and habeas corpus were so quaint. This article by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker is at www.washingtonpost.com:

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

A backlash beginning in 2004, after reports of abuse leaked out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay, brought what appeared to be sharp reversals in courts and Congress -- for Cheney's claims of executive supremacy and for his unyielding defense of what he called "robust interrogation."

But a more careful look at the results suggests that Cheney won far more than he lost. Many of the harsh measures he championed, and some of the broadest principles undergirding them, have survived intact but out of public view.

REPUBLICANS' CROCODILE TEARS FOR WORKERS

When there has been talk of raising the minimum wage Republicans suddenly find themselves concerned about workers and small business. "It will cost jobs!" they'll claim, even though the historical evidence doesn't support that claim. Republicans opposed even non-paid leave for employees to deal with family emergencies. And Republicans love to demonize unions. Unions, to hear them tell it, are the root of all evil. Unions, in fact, are largely responsible for many of the benefits American working people have earned, everything from the eight hour day, to time and half for overtime, to paid vacations, sick days, and pension plans. Now the Republicans in Congress are using the same old malarkey to try to scuttle the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers greater freedom in forming unions. It's time to send a resounding "No!" to Republicans and their make-the-fat-cats-fatter economics. This article by Bob Geiger is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

The bill would make it easier for workers to get a living wage and decent benefits and, hey, this is America and everything, so who in the world would have a problem with that?

You guessed it -- the same crew that worked like crazy to keep the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for the rest of our lives or until a Democratic Congress came to town and got a raise passed.

But what's interesting -- or not, if you're accustomed to watching the Republican party's fear-and-smear approach -- is how much concern GOP Senators suddenly seem to have for workers and how afraid they are that employees will lose their right to unionize via secret ballots. And of course, Republicans love to raise the possibility that these poor workers will also be subject to intimidation by big bad union bosses, hell-bent on forcing them into higher wages and better benefits.

The usual GOP suspects came out strong on Friday in debate about the legislation. Here's Mike Enzi (R-WY), who's voted against working families on the minimum wage more times than Mitt Romney changes his political views:

June 24, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

MAKING THEIR OWN REALITY

The Bush administration has been an astounding mix of arrogance, incompetence, hypocrisy, and greed. The administration didn't like the reality about Iraq, so they created their own reality, even using forged documents to suggest Iraq was buying enriched uranium from Niger. They didn't like the fact Al Gore really won the election in 2000, so they used the Supreme Court to invalidate the will of the American people. If they don't like legislation, Bush will sign the bill and then use a "signing statement" to say he's not really going to enforce the legislation. We have Dick Cheney making the astonishing claim that the Vice President is not a part of the executive branch and not subject to the laws governing the executive branch. This editorial is from www.newyorktimes.com:

President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them. This week, we learned that in a shocking number of cases, the Bush administration has refused to enact those laws. Congress should use its powers to insist that its laws are obeyed.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigated 19 provisions to which Mr. Bush objected. It found that six of them, or nearly a third, have not been implemented as the law requires. The G.A.O. did not investigate some of the most infamous signing statements, like the challenge to a ban on torture. But the ones it looked into are disturbing enough.

In one case, Congress directed the Pentagon in its 2007 budget request to account separately for the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a perfectly appropriate request, but Mr. Bush issued a signing statement critical of the rule, and the Pentagon withheld the information. In two other cases, federal agencies ignored laws requiring them to get permission from Congressional committees before taking particular actions.

OVERWORKED AMERICANS

In one of his more infamous gaffes George W. Bush told a woman who was working two jobs, "How uniquely American." Bush seemed to think that having to work multiple jobs was a good thing. While right-wingers chirp about "family values," they have no problem with people working weeks more in the United States than workers do in other industrialized countries, often being denied paid vacation time or sick leave or holidays. Right-wingers even objected to unpaid family leave so people could attend to family emergencies. The United States needs to start treating working people humanely with better wages, health care, vacation time, and holidays. This article by David Moberg is at www.inthesetimes.com:

Why do workers in other rich countries have more paid time off? Mainly because laws demand employers provide it. The European Union requires its members to set a minimum standard of four weeks paid vacation (covering part-time workers as well). Finland and France require six weeks paid vacation, plus additional paid holidays. Most countries require workers to take the time off and employers to give them vacation at convenient times. Some governments even require employers to pay bonuses so workers can afford to do more than sit at home on vacation. On top of that, unions in Europe and other rich industrialized countries—whose contracts cover up to 90 percent of the workforce—typically negotiate additional time off. Meanwhile, the standard workweek is slightly shorter in many European countries, and workers retire earlier with better public pensions.

Until the early ’70s, European and American workers logged similar hours. But the pattern then drastically diverged, with Europeans getting more vacation time, around the same time that U.S. income inequality began growing. In the United States, corporations gained the upper hand against workers and their declining unions, and the Democratic Party started shifting away from working class concerns. In Europe, stronger unions and left political parties pushed for shorter work hours. In some cases, as jobs were lost when traditional industries restructured or work was outsourced, unions saw reduced work time as a way to share work. But more often, unions were continuing the battle to share wealth in the form of more leisure, which had started a century earlier with the movement for an eight-hour day—the goal of Chicago protestors in May, 1886, that ended in the Haymarket Massacre, repression of the labor movement, and creation of May 1 as the international workers’B holiday.

June 23, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

GOP DEAD IN THE WATER

When it comes to guiding the ship of state the GOP is dead in the water and starting to sink. Maybe it's a good thing there are no new ideas, because Republican ideas have almost all been bad. We got into the disaster and atrocity in Iraq thanks to the "intellectuals" at PNAC and their puppet president. We got the gold standard of bad ideas in trickle down economics. We've had other winners like school vouchers and "faith based initiatives." This article by Paul Waldman is at www.prospect.org:

Two years ago, in a much-discussed cover article for The New Republic called "The Case Against New Ideas," Jonathan Chait argued that Democrats should resist the pleas of pundits to look for their political salvation in new plans and visions. But as the 2008 race gathers speed, it appears to be the Republicans who have abandoned ideas -- new or otherwise -- in a quest for the GOP nomination that has been remarkable in its utter lack of substance, even by the standards of contemporary campaigns.

Think about it this way: Can you think of a single substantive proposal consisting of more than a sentence or two that any of the GOP candidates has made on the campaign trail? I'm not even talking about some lengthy policy paper or plan for overhauling a major sector of government. But any idea to do something, anything, differently than the Bush administration has? The closest one can come is the immigration bill that Congress is debating, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor. But one gets the impression that McCain wishes no one would bring it up, at least until the primaries are over and all those pesky nativists have nowhere to go but to the Republican nominee. Is there anything else the Republican candidates are actually proposing to do? Any discernable agenda coming from any of them? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

It's true that in practice, "ideas," particularly "new ideas," usually serve mainly as signifiers of change from the way things are currently done. This makes things harder on Republicans, as the party currently in charge of the executive branch. A Democrat can offer a relatively simplistic three-point plan for getting out of Iraq, and it sounds like a new idea. But for a Republican who still supports the war (as they all do, with the exception of Ron Paul), coming up with a "new idea" on Iraq would require some exceptional creativity. And this is not a particularly creative crew.

June 22, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

A STEP TOWARD ECONOMIC SECURITY

Congress is debating the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow employees more freedom to unionize. It's desperately needed legislation. We hear the pundits talk about market "corrections" when there is a downturn in the stock market. We need a correction in the imbalance that exists between salaries and the perks and bonuses that go to high rollers. While CEO salaries have exploded, the wages of average workers have flatlined. Unionization gives working people more power to get economic security for themselves and their families. As this author points out, this is a far better approach than blaming illegal immigrants and building a wall between the United States and Mexico. The article by Harold Meyerson is at www.prospect.org:

This week, just before it turns again to immigration, the Senate takes up the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would restore to America's workers the right to join unions. Depending on how you look at it, the Senate's timing -- moving to bolster middle- and working-class incomes before it alters our immigration policy -- is either impeccable or 30 years too late.

For those adamantly against the efforts to legalize the 12 million or so undocumented immigrants among us, opposition has become the vehicle to express a range of anxieties that go far beyond the question at hand. Some of those anxieties are racial and cultural. Others are economic -- the fear that immigrants take jobs from native-born Americans, the fear that they drag wages down.

There is, as those of us who support the legalization of the undocumented must admit, some -- though by no means universal -- validity to these fears. Immigrants are not employed solely as farmworkers, gardeners, and nannies. One look at construction crews or the women who clean hotel rooms makes clear that there has been, in many regions, a vast shift in the composition of sectoral workforces. During the Depression, the government shipped Mexican migrant workers -- and American citizens of Mexican descent -- back to Mexico. Conversely, when Congress acted in 1965 to allow considerably more immigrants into the United States, it was a time of widely shared prosperity and mass job security of the sort that has vanished from America today.

June 19, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

IT'S OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT BUSH'S

People born to wealth often seem to have a sense of entitlement, but George W. Bush has taken the sense of entitlement to a whole new level. He's been a spoiled punk his whole life, presiding over failed businesses, but never taking responsibility. But with a few cronies in the right places and through a total lack of ethics he attained the White House. It has been a disaster for the country and for the world, especially for Iraq. Bush even likes to proclaim the United States government "my government." This article by Michael Winship is at www.commondreams.org:

You’d think that with such a shambles in his wake and his popularity at an all-time low, George Bush would at least partially have relinquished his pride of ownership. Not so.

Here he is the other day, responding to the aborted attempt in the Senate to legislatively declare “no confidence” in Attorney General “Fredo” Gonzales:

“They can try to have their votes of no confidence,” the president said, “but it’s not going to determine — make the determination — who serves in my government.”

MY government? Now that’s entitlement. And you thought George Bush didn’t have a vision for America. Unfortunately, it’s one big MySpace page, from sea to shining sea. Or, rather, shining me.

Luckily, as this lame duck presidency wobbly waddles toward the sunset, cooler heads are prevailing in both the public and private sectors. Read, for example, last week’s majority decision in the case of Al Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari national held in military custody. Written by US Circuit Court Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, it states that simply designating someone an “enemy combatant” does not allow the White House to imprison them indefinitely without charges.

NINE MILLION KIDS WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE

Any time you talk about a national health care system conservatives bound up and down and screech about "socialized medicine." We have the best health system in the world, they'll pontificate. It's the best system in the world for the people who can afford it. Millions of Americans, including nine million children, do not have health insurance. It's another disgraceful failure by the federal government to address the needs of its citizens. This article by Bob Herbert is linked at www.truthout.org:

You won't see these stories on television, but Marian Wright Edelman and Dr. Irwin Redlener could talk to you all day and all night about children whose lives have been lost or ruined because they didn't have health insurance.

This is not a situation one associates with a so-called advanced country. That you can have sick children wasting away in the United States, the wealthiest nation on the planet, because medical treatment that could relieve their suffering is withheld by men and women with dollar signs instead of compassion in their eyes is beyond unconscionable.

Ms. Edelman is the president of the Children's Defense Fund, and Dr. Redlener is president of the Children's Health Fund.

Both are appalled at the embarrassing fact that nine million American children have no health coverage at all. Among them are children with diabetes, chronic asthma, heart conditions, life-threatening allergies and so on. In many instances they are left untreated until it is too late.

Leaving children uninsured is a form of Russian roulette, Dr. Redlener said.

"All children should be covered," said Ms. Edelman.

June 17, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

THE LIBBY LOVE LETTERS

People who wrote letters to the judge in support of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby weren't counting on the letters becoming public. Even James Carville, for heaven's sake, signed a letter supporting Libby. Libby played a major role in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, as an act of political revenge against her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson. The people who wax eloquent over Libby don't seem to care in the least about the death and destruction in Iraq that Libby, among others, has perpetrated. This column by Frank Rich is at www.welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com:

As a weary nation awaited the fade-out of "The Sopranos" last Sunday, the widow of the actual Mafia don John Gotti visited his tomb in Queens to observe the fifth anniversary of his death. Victoria Gotti was not pleased to find reporters lying in wait.

"It's disgusting that people are still obsessed with Gotti and the mob," she told The Daily News. "They should be obsessed with that mob in Washington. They have 3,000 deaths on their hands." She demanded to know if the president and vice president have relatives on the front lines. "Every time I watch the news and I hear of another death," she said, "it sickens me."

Far be it from me to cross any member of the Gotti family, but there's nothing wrong with being obsessed with both mobs. Now that the approval rating for the entire Washington franchise, the president and Congress alike, has plummeted into the 20s, we need any distraction we can get; the Mafia is a welcome nostalgic escape from a gridlocked government at home and epic violence abroad.

BUSH HOLDS US IN CONTEMPT

George W. Bush and his neocons have consistently shown their contempt for working class Americans. Bush's tax cuts benefited the already enormously wealthy, but did little for most of us. While doing photo-ops with the troops, most of whom are working class, Bush plays his commander in chief role. But he cuts benefits for the military. We have deplorable conditions at Washington's Walter Reed Hospital exposed and it's quickly forgotten in the next wave of scandals. We can only hope that Americans for generations to come will remember this filthy deplorable administration and absolutely refuse to buy into the phony talking points of right-wing Republicans. This article by Sherwood Ross at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Low- and middle-income Americans are finding it harder and harder to make a buck and hold onto a buck. More and more families can't afford to send their kids to college. Interest rates on credit cards and payday loans today approach vigorish levels that would have gladdened the heart of a Mafia don. And under the Bush Administration, non-business bankruptcies hit an all-time record of 2 million in 2005. Writing in Business Week magazine, Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution noted millions of Americans continue to live in inner city neighborhoods afflicted by "failing schools, unsafe streets, run-down housing, and few local jobs." One hears of the Bush Administration struggling to find jobs for unemployed Iraqis but who recalls President Bush expressing concern for inner city neighborhoods where 72% of black male high school dropouts are unemployed? Where are the make-work and training programs for them and for the rural poor, white, black, and Hispanic? And what happened to all the summer jobs this year? Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston writes the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University "projects this summer will have the lowest teen employment rate in the past 60 years."

In his proposed $2.9-trillion budget for fiscal 2008, President Bush calls for $80 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and for seniors to pay more for doctor's visits and prescription drugs. The Administration is devoting considerable time to its plans for a major attack on Iran but where is its plan to provide health care security for 45-million uncovered Americans? According to the AFL-CIO, "On the jobs front, Bush cuts more than $1 billion in job training and employment programs...(and) eliminates current job training for unemployed adults and at-risk youths..." The Bush Administration is even cutting back on "food stamps and other social programs," according to an article in the June 25 issue of "The Nation" magazine. "The number of children receiving lunch during the summer has steadily gone down in recent years dropping to 2.8 million in 2005 from a high of 3.1 million in 2000, even though the number of needy children has gone up by 1.3 million during those years, as poverty levels have risen," writes law professor Herman Schwartz, of American University. By some estimates, one out of every eight Americans lives in poverty, a figure approaching 40 million people.

June 15, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

SICK OF BUSH

Even George H. W. Bush, the first President Bush, talked recently of "Bush fatigue." I never liked George W. Bush. From the first, I thought he was a phony and a dangerous reactionary. His whole life has been one of privilege, but he has presided over failure after failure. There was always someone there to bail him out. But the American people were deluded and foolish enough to get him close enough to the Oval Office that his buddies in the Supreme Court were able to install him into the presidency. Then the corrupt Republican machine managed to steal enough votes in Ohio in 2004 to get him back into the White House. This goes way beyond "fatigue." Bush has done considerable harm to our electoral process, to our international reputation and credibility, and to our economy. It will take decades to repair the damage if it is repairable. This column by Rosa Brooks is at www.latimes.com:

Bush didn't return from his European trip to a warm welcome here at home either. The political left doesn't like him — not that that's anything new. The political center doesn't like him either: A new NBC/Wall Street Journal report finds that only 29% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, the lowest level of his presidency. Even on the political right (where most of the 29% of Americans who aren't yet sick of him reside), many have developed an acute case of buyer's remorse.

The GOP's Republican primary candidates are competing to distance themselves from Bush, and more and more conservatives are in open revolt. Some, like economist Bruce Bartlett, fume at the explosion of government spending under Bush. Others, like Sen. Chuck Hagel and a growing cadre of Republican foreign policy experts, are appalled by Bush's mishandling of the Iraq war and other national security issues.

Others, such as Richard Viguerie (conservative direct-mail pioneer) and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr (the House's lead prosecutor during the Clinton impeachment), are so angry at what they see as Bush's constitutional abuses that they've started channeling (and in Barr's case, joining) the ACLU. "Since 9/11," they assert, "the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power and has repeatedly claimed that the president is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling." Even the three harpies of far-right punditry — Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham — have denounced Bush's favored immigration bill as soft on illegal immigrants.

THE EDUCATION MYTH

We keep hearing that the way out of poverty is getting better skills and a better education. But it's similar to the idea that anyone in America can make it by working hard and playing by the rules. It doesn't work that way. Not everyone in the country is going to be rich. For society to work, there have to be people available to do the necessary services, whether it be plumbing, the law, picking up the garbage, or policing the streets. As this author points out, we need higher wages, not some illusory benefit from a higher education. The article by Daniel Brook is at www.huffingtonpost.com:

There are lots of jobs for burger flippers not because there are lots of uneducated people who can't do other jobs. People don't flip burgers for a living because we have compassion on them and give them spatulas. There are lots of jobs for burger flippers because there's a high demand for burgers and because running a chain of restaurants that serve burgers is very profitable. (McDonald's stock recently hit an all-time high.)

In a world where everyone had a college degree, there would still be burger flippers -- they would just have college degrees too. The issue is not whether there will be burger flippers -- there will be as long as there is demand for burgers -- the issue is what burger flippers will get paid. And here we have a political question more than an economic question.

Burger flipping is a job that falls towards the bottom of the wage scale everywhere. The actual wage is determined largely by the minimum wage and whether or not burger flippers are able to effectively organize. The post-war U.S. economy was based on the principle that, with unions, working-class jobs could pay middle-class wages. And judging from McDonald's profit margins, that's still true. But to make that the reality in the U.S., we'd have to raise the minimum wage and reform our ineffectual labor laws.

June 14, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

TRADE POLICY AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Conventional wisdom is that globalization is here to stay. I haven't heard much discussion from the current crop of presidential candidates about the destructive effects of United States trade policy. I think NAFTA and GATT should be repealed. Globalization has been harmful to workers in the United States and has wrecked havoc on people in Central and South America. One of the things that fuels illegal immigration to the United States is the desperation of people in Mexico and Central America because their economies are being destroyed by globalization. The political and corporate class in the United States want it both ways. They love the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants, but they gripe about the social costs of dealing with the immigrants. They love globalization, but they don't want to deal with the destructive effects of globalization. This article by David Bacon is at www.truthout.org:

The comprehensive immigration bill may have stalled in the Senate last week, but the debate over immigration policy will undoubtedly continue - especially over the status of the millions of undocumented workers presently in the United States, as well as those who will come in the next few years.

In fact, that continued flow of workers is inevitable, since Congress is also considering new trade legislation that is guaranteed to increase the number of undocumented workers in the United States. Our nation's trade and immigration policies have never been as closely connected as they are today. Four new agreements are currently being considered, while President Bush is pushing for "fast track" authority to negotiate even more of them. All will exacerbate our current immigration issues by displacing thousands of workers and farmers, most of whom will join the cross-border flow of migrant labor that already tops 200 million people worldwide.

Over the last two years, all of the immigration proposals considered by Congress have sought more openly than ever to channel that labor, making it available to the world's largest corporations at a price they want to pay. Welcome to the new world order.

US employers have always wanted the country's immigration policy to supply workers when needed and get rid of them when the need ended. At its logical extreme, this policy produced brutal results. In the 1930s, tens of thousands of Mexicans were deported in neighborhood sweeps around the country, when unemployment rose and threatened social unrest. Less than a decade later, the US government negotiated the return of those same people as braceros, or temporary contract workers.

June 13, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

LIMBAUGH TAKE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

I should point out that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. But today I had to get a shuttle ride home because my car is getting maintenance and, unfortunately, the shuttle driver had KKKMJ Radio on. Immigrants, Limbaugh says, are people Democrats "can control." He said that "Democrats are running out of victims." According to Limbaugh's skewed vision of the world, Democrats want low-paid people in the country who will vote for Democrats because Democrats support social programs that help poor people. Never mind that under Democratic administrations poverty decreases and more people rise into the middle class. It is people like Limbaugh who want a permanent underclass. Even more, people like Limbaugh don't want government to intervene to help the poor. The poor are victims of a predatory capitalist system. I like this article by Barbara Ehrenreich just because Limbaugh was trashing it. It's at www.thenation.com:

The punitive rage directed at illegal immigrants grows out of a larger blindness to the manual labor that makes our lives possible: The touching belief, in the class occupied by Rush Limbaugh among many others, that offices clean themselves at night and salad greens spring straight from the soil onto one's plate.

Native-born workers share in this invisibility, but it's far worse in the case of immigrant workers, who are often, for all practical purposes, nameless. In the recent book There's No José Here: Following the Lives of Mexican Immigrants, Gabriel Thompson cites a construction company manager who says things like, "I've got to get myself a couple of Josés for this job if we're going to have that roof patched up by Saturday." Forget the Juans, Diegos, and Eduardos - they're all interchangeable "Josés."

Hence no doubt the ease with which some prominent immigrant-bashers forget their own personal reliance on immigrant labor, like Nevada's Governor Jim Gibbons, who, it turns out, once employed an undocumented nanny. And as the Boston Globe revealed late last year, Mitt Romney's lawn in suburban Boston was maintained by illegal immigrants from Guatemala.

THE RICH: BY THE NUMBERS

The aforementioned Rush Limbaugh, like so many reactionaries, is aghast at the concept of the "redistribution of wealth." That's only a problem with Limbaugh if the "redistribution" goes to middle class and poor people. As long as the money is being vacuumed up by the very rich, there's no problem. It should outrage us that the Walton family, among the richest people who have ever lived on the planet, prosper at the expense of their underpaid employees. There is no excuse for people being hungry in this country, or homeless, or going without medical care. The system effectively blocks getting a world class education, that panacea for what ails us, because college is too expensive. This article by Clara Jeffery is at www.motherjones.com:

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half.

BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.

June 12, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

NEOCON "IDEALISM"

Now that Iraq has descended into chaos and unending bloodshed, we're told that the neocons who advocated this war had good intentions, even if the results were horrible. I guess I'm cynical about everything conservative. I don't believe there is much idealism in conservatism. I believe it is a philosophy based on exploitation of other human beings, based on exploitation of other species, and based on exploitation of natural resources. At its core is a Social Darwinist belief that survival of the fittest is the way things should be. Higher motivations such as compassion and peace are weak, according to conservatives, and a drag on the "achievers." This article by Chris Christensen is at www.onlinejournal.com:

So the neocons do fly the flag of idealism, but always below the banner of their first love: military buildup and war. Of course, one could argue that invasion and occupation have to come first in the discussion because that is the means by which the ideal -- democracy -- is to be achieved. If one accepts the flawed premise that democracy can take root in an imperial bomb crater, the argument is not without a veneer of logic. But there’s another PNAC document that doesn’t even attempt to paper over the militarism.

A 90-page report of September 2000, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” argues for permanent bases in southeast Europe and southeast Asia. It states that the U.S. must have the capability to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars. It contends that the U.S. should “control the ‘new international commons’ of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- the U.S. Space Force -- with the mission of space control.”

The report also argues that the U.S. military should play a “constabulary” role in the world. All of these recommendations bristle with militaristic, anti-democratic fantasy, but it’s this “constabulary” business that best illustrates the neocons’ true colors. In America, the local constable, or sheriff, usually gets the job democratically -- by running for election. If a group of local citizens proposed seizing the badge by force, they’d be laughed out of town or arrested and thrown in the loony bin. Yet the neocons, supposed champions of democracy, propose that very thing for the entire planet, and are taken seriously by many.

June 11, 2007

IMPEACH BUSH

IMPEACH CHENEY

REAL VS. PHONY

If you need any further evidence of the disintegration of journalism, just look at how they cover the presidential candidates. John Edwards has been portrayed as phony in the media because he talks about poverty, but lives in a big house and gets expensive haircuts. Fred Thompson, another marginally-talented actor, is "authentic" according to the media, but doesn't even drive his real car for photo-ops. George W. Bush was "authentic" and the kind of guy you'd have a beer with, but "compassionate conservatism" was always a sham. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.commondreams.org:

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

On the other hand, consider the case of Fred Thompson. He spent 18 years working as a highly paid lobbyist, wore well-tailored suits and drove a black Lincoln Continental. When he ran for the Senate, however, his campaign reinvented him as a good old boy: it leased a used red pickup truck for him to drive, dressed up in jeans and a work shirt, with a can of Red Man chewing tobacco on the front seat.

But Mr. Thompson’s strength, says Lanny Davis in The Hill, is that he’s “authentic.”

Oh, and as a candidate George W. Bush was praised as being more authentic than Al Gore. As late as November 2005, MSNBC’s chief political correspondent declared that Mr. Bush’s authenticity was his remaining source of strength. But now The A.P. says that Mr. Bush’s lack of credibility is the reason his would-be successors need to seem, yes, authentic.

UNVARNISHED U. S. HISTORY

In a few weeks we'll celebrate Independence Day, which again will be replete with fireworks and flags and self-congratulatory tributes to our greatness and dedication to freedom. But a truly great nation is honest about its faults. We shouldn't need propaganda to prop up our national self esteem. We need to face up to slavery in our past, to inequality, to a sometimes vicious foreign policy, and to our place among the community of nations. This article by Jason Miller is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Capitalism, which has evolved into its utterly reprehensible advanced stages here in the United States, is intellectually buttressed by the ridiculous notion that people acting on two of the most despicable traits of humanity, greed and selfishness, will enhance the commonweal. The current state of affairs in the United States demonstrates otherwise. Despite the slight doses of socialism which have mitigated the abject suffering inflicted by relatively unfettered capitalism during the Gilded Age, and despite the fact that we are the wealthiest nation in the history of humanity, there are still over a million homeless human beings, millions experience hunger and food insecurity, nearly fifty million lack a viable means to obtain our outrageously expensive medical care, our leading indicators of health are amongst the lowest of industrialized nations, urban public school systems are in a state of crisis and decay, and, as Katrina so clearly indicated, we are content to spend most of our hard-earned tax dollars on industrialized murder, blame victims, and leave the suffering to die, even here at home.

June 10, 2007

IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

President Theodore Roosevelt talked about "malefactors of great wealth" and in his day there was an effort to break up the big monopolies. In the Bush era, however, it appears that anti-trust enforcement is a bad thing. This article talks about how the Microsoft company has found an ally in the Bush Justice Department. The article by Stephen Labaton is at www.nytimes.com:

“With the change in administrations there has been a sharp falling away from the concerns about how Microsoft and other large companies use their market power,” said Harry First, a professor at the New York University School of Law and the former top antitrust lawyer for New York State who is writing a book about the Microsoft case. “The administration has been very conservative and far less concerned about single-firm dominant behavior than previous administrations.”

Ricardo Reyes, a spokesman for Google, declined to comment about the complaint.

Bradford L. Smith, the general counsel at Microsoft, said that the company was unaware of Mr. Barnett’s memo. He said that Microsoft had not violated the consent decree and that it had already made modifications to Vista in response to concerns raised by Google and other companies.

He said that the new operating system was carefully designed to work well with rival software products and that an independent technical committee that works for the Justice Department and the states had spent years examining Vista for possible anticompetitive problems before it went on sale.

THE PERVERSION OF DEMOCRACY

George W. Bush and his cronies mouth pieties about democracy all the time. We went into Iraq and started an unjustified war, but we were going to give them "democracy." We've heard about how terrible Cuba is or how bad Hugo Chavez is in Venezuela. But we don't hear about the Saudis, good friends of the Bush family, although the Saudis are one of the most repressive regimes in the world. This article by Chris Floyd is at www.chris-floyd.com:

If a nation is not compliant with Washington's will -- why, then, it is no longer a legitimate democracy. Venezuala, for example, is often referred to in Establishment circles as a "dictatorship," despite the several open elections won by Hugo Chavez and his coalition -- and despite the fact that remains immeasurably freer in every regard than, say, Saudi Arabia.

Which brings us to the second point of the Establishment's true attitude toward democracy: if a regime plays ball with Washington, it doesn't matter in the least how tyrannical and un-democratic it is. Bandar Bush's Saudi Arabia again stands as the prime example of this. Bush will quite literally kiss Saudi leaders on the lips and stroll with them hand-in-hand, and never say a word about the regime's Venezuela strictures, which give the Taliban a run for their money. Why? Because the Saudis play ball -- and because they enrich the Bush Family and the American elite. Is there any doubt that if Vladimir Putin cut the Bushes or other Establishment elites in for a juicy slice of Gazprom, he too would find his "democratic" credentials miraculously restored?

June 09, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

THE PROMISE

Just before he was murdered, Martin Luther King Jr. said he had been to the mountain top and had seen the other side. We have had glimpses of the other side. We had a glimpse during the New Deal when FDR's reforms made ours a more just society. We had another glimpse during the New Frontier and Great Society when there was an effort to reduce poverty and to extend a peaceful hand to the rest of the world. Both the New Deal and the Great Society were ultimately thwarted by wars. Now, after seeing how bad things truly are under conservatism, we stand poised once again to create a more just and democratic society. To illustrate the contrast, consider the contempt right-wing pundits show for the majority of us. Rush Limbaugh claims it is the top 5% who "pull the wagon" and the rest of us hop in the wagon for the ride. Columnists like Cal Thomas and George Will slobber all over themselves in glorifying the rich. This article by Brent Budowsky is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Do the math: We are on the right side and Republicans are on the wrong side of global warming, where 80 percent of Americans want change. Republicans are in bed with oil companies, who make record profits while they rip off consumers and profit from wars, while homeless vets go hungry and disabled vets are often neglected.

On immigration the Republican Party is being eaten alive from within, torn in half, trapped in their politics of fear, while Hispanics are moving to Democrats in major numbers.

Independents are aligning with Democrats in overwhelming numbers, and this will continue so long as Democrats act like Democrats.

Support the vets — 25 million American vets with a 75 percent voter turnout. Add their families and the number rises above 50 million. Democrats can reclaim our heritage of FDR and JFK as the true party of troops, vets and military families.

June 08, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

SEND IN THE CLOWNS

I guess we had another Republican "debate," which featured several rich white guys talking about the disastrous policies they would pursue if Americans are stupid enough to put any of them into the White House. How high can you build that wall between us and Mexico? How many bombs will we drop on Iran? How hot does the planet have to get before we do something about global warming? Just when do the rich really have enough wealth? Are we going to just shred that quaint little document called the Constitution? It might be entertaining if the implications weren't so serious. This editorial by Marc Cooper is at www.thenation.com:

Indeed, the first hour of the debate rather obsessively centered on which candidate was more zealously in favor of tactical nuclear war against Iran (a toss-up), most in favor of the longest and highest wall on the border (Duncan Hunter), most willing to pardon Scooter Libby (Tom Tancredo) and who was the most ardent among all the creationists (Mike Huckabee who re-assured us we were, in fact, not descended from monkeys).

I know that New Hampshire voters are infamously quirky but, somehow, I doubt that any of the above are among their election promise priorities.

Bottom line: This debate was but empty prelude. The real election – starting in the fall--is going to be about the war and one or another of these guys is gonna have to change his tune to really break out.

June 07, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

THE INSANE MILITARY BUDGET

When the Soviet Union fell in 1989, effectively ending the Cold War, we began to hear talk of a "peace dividend." All the money and resources that went into the Cold War could, theoretically, be used for more constructive things. But it didn't happen. War and the fear of war are just too profitable for some people. Fear is also an effective political tactic, as the Bush administration demonstrated for several years. In a time when we should be scaling back military spending the Pentagon budget is more bloated and wasteful than ever before. We're spending billions on weapons systems to fight a high tech enemy when our enemies use box cutters and improvised explosive devices. This commentary by Robert Dreyfuss is at www.truthout.org:

So hostile is the atmosphere in Congress to cuts of any sort in military spending that even a recent effort by traditional defense critics to suggest ways to reorient the Pentagon's budgetary priorities turned out to involve but the most modest of rebalancings. A coalition of these critics from organizations such as the Institute for Policy Studies, the Center for American Progress, and other left and left-center groups, including such experts as Larry Korb of CAP, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, and William Hartung of the World Policy Institute, suggested cutting $56 billion from offensive weapons systems, but then proposed to shift fully $50 billion of it into areas such as homeland security, international peacekeeping, and "nation building."

Why, exactly, we need to increase Pentagon spending even in those categories is mystifying, since no country is actually threatening us and - if the Iraqi and Afghani wars were settled - the problem of terrorism could be adequately dealt with by mobilizing relatively modest numbers of CIA officers and FBI and law enforcement agents. The fact that such respected defense critics feel compelled to put forward such a lame proposal is a sign of our crimped times; a sign that, pragmatically speaking, it is simply verboten to criticize Pentagon bloat, even given the current, Democrat-controlled Congress. It's not that the public is pro-military spending either. Indeed, in a Gallup Poll conducted in February, fully 43% of Americans said they believed that the United States is spending "too much" on defense, while only 20% said "too little." Rather, it's a sign that the political class - perhaps swayed by the influence of the military-industrial complex and its army of lobbyists - hasn't yet caught up to public opinion.

And it's important to keep in mind that the official Pentagon budget doesn't begin to tell the full story of American "defense" spending. In addition to the $650 billion that the Pentagon will get in 2008, huge additional sums will be spent on veterans care and interest on the national debt accumulated from previous DOD spending that ballooned the deficit. In all, those two accounts add $263 billion to the Pentagon budget, for a grand total of $913 billion.

June 06, 2007

IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

RIGHT WING FAILURE

Everything right-wingers touch turns into a ruin. Look at anything: the environment, the economy, civil rights, foreign policy, and our educational system are all a mess thanks to right-wing policies. Just a few days ago a letter writer to The Fresno Bee made the claim that "socialism has never worked." I would suggest that neither has unregulated capitalism, unless you consider the rich acquiring everything the way it should be. In this article Ernest Partridge looks at the massive failure of right-wing policies since Ronald Reagan. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Thus began a grand experiment: Release the American economy from the bonds of government regulation. Individual enterprise and initiative, the profit motive, the free market and open competition will usher in a new birth of freedom and a new era of unprecedented prosperity.

“It’s morning in America.”

Twenty-six years later, what do we have? A dismantled and “outsourced” industrial base, an impoverished work force, a nine trillion dollar debt burden upon future generations, and a degradation of education and scientific research, and a captive media that deprives the public of essential news as it issues outright lies. In addition, the Bush administration, the current keeper of the covenant, has accomplished the trashing of the Constitution and its guaranteed Bill of Rights, a seemingly endless war with no prospect (or even definition) of victory, and the contempt of the peoples and governments of the civilized world.

The grand experiment has failed, and we are just beginning to realize the enormous costs of that failure.

June 05, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

RIGHT WINGERS THEN AND NOW

There was a plot to overthrow FDR when he was president. When Earl Warren was Chief Justice right-wingers worked themselves into a froth about removing Warren from the Supreme Court. We remember Hillary Clinton's statement about "a vast right-wing conspiracy" to bring down the Clinton administration. There is considerable evidence there was such a conspiracy. Back in JFK's administration right-wingers were also crawling from under their rocks. I've been reading David Talbot's fascinating book Brothers about the JFK assassination and Robert Kennedy's search for the truth. On page 77 Talbot talks about JFK responding to the lunatic John Birch Society:

"In periods of high tension like the Cold War, Kennedy told his audience, 'there have always been those on the fringes of our society who have fought to escape their own responsibility by finding a simple solution, an appealing slogan, or a convenient scapegoat.' In the current 'period of heightened peril,' with the world held hostage by the constant threat of nuclear war, this paranoid strain in American politics was flourishing, Kennedy observed. 'Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced the danger is from within. They look suspiciously on their neighbors and their leaders. They call for a 'man on horseback' because they do not trust the people. They find treason in our churches, in our highest court, and even in the treatment of our water.' The last twist of the presidential knife was directed at the colorful theory, popular in far-right circles at the time, that the fluoridation of water was a Communist plot."

June 03, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

MANIFEST DESTINY

Throughout our history there has been a belief that Americans are special. We can make up rules because we are special. There was the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" that said it was the destiny of Americans to take over the continent. Never mind those pesky Mexicans and Indians. We created the "Monroe Doctrine" that said only the U. S. could dictate policy in this hemisphere. I doubt there was consultation with countries in the Caribbean or Latin America. George W. Bush and his administration ran with the ideas of the PNAC group who advocated a "project for a new American century." Bush and company have used the belief in American exceptionalism to preemptively attack a country and to torture people. This article by William T. Vollmann is at www.latimes.com:

We are Americans, and so until recently, we knew that we were the best. Because so many people wanted to be us, we could act as we pleased — and we did, because we were the Great Exception; we were America the Blessed. Hence our complacent belief, so long borne out by the facts, that American movies and American brands would always sell. Hence also our comforting faith that the Kyoto Protocol did not apply to us, so that we could spew out all the greenhouse gases we liked, and use a pig's share of the world's resources. (Just this week, I learned of the U.S.' new plan for energy independence: coal plants, subsidized for the next 25 years.)

Being America the Perfect, we invented the doctrine, even before 9/11, that we could seize war criminals in any part of the globe and whisk them off to The Hague. Of course, we insisted that should we ever commit war crimes, we would remain immune to prosecution in that court. Well, after all, how could Americans do any wrong?

THE CONTRAST

I have been disappointed in Democrats on many occasions. Initial support for this despicable war, voting for bankruptcy "reform," supporting globalization, and foot dragging on impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney are all major disappointments. But there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, despite the rhetoric of people like Ralph Nader. Life will be better with Democrats in charge, not only for those of us in the United States, but for people around the world. We have a slate of Republican candidates who are fine with the war, fine with torture, who don't want to do anything about global climate change, who think we aren't unequal enough. They will continue the policies of George W. Bush, no matter how they try to dress them up. This article by E. J. Dionne is linked at www.working for change.com:

So when Democratic presidential candidates get together, they argue about who has the best health care plan. When Republicans have a big discussion, it's about torture and who'll use it when.

OK, OK, Republicans had their chat about torture in one debate in response to a hypothetical question. Still, the contrast points to one of the strangest qualities of the 2008 presidential campaign: Our two political parties and their candidates are living in parallel universes. It is as if they were running for president in two separate countries. Their televised debates next week will be productions as different from each other as "American Idol" is from "P.T.I."

The parties do have some things in common -- Iraq and the economy are concerns for both. But beyond these two issues, what matters most to Republican voters is hugely different from what matters most to Democrats. The polarization between our parties now extends to the very definition of our country, its problems and the stakes in the next elections.

June 02, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

WE NEED SMART PEOPLE

I like smart people. I like people who read and write books, who write and perform music, who write and perform in movies, and who do research in science. We owe a lot to smart people who have preceded us, the people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci. Why is that people think a smart person in the White House is such a bad idea? You wouldn't want a bumbling fool performing surgery on you. You wouldn't want a bumbling idiot to represent you in court. You don't want fools teaching your children. But people voted for George W. Bush because he was the kind of guy you'd have a beer with. In the complicated world we face in the 21st century we need the smartest and most able people we can find to address all the problems we face from global climate change, to terrorism, to AIDS, and global poverty. This article by Eugene Robinson is at www.washingtonpost.com:

When I look at what the next president will have to deal with, I don't see much that can be solved with just a winning smile, a firm handshake and a ton of resolve. I see conundrums, dilemmas, quandaries, impasses, gnarly thickets of fateful possibility with no obvious way out. Iraq is the obvious place he or she will have to start; I want a president smart enough to figure out how to minimize the damage.

I want a president who reads newspapers, who reads books other than those that confirm his worldview, who bones up on Persian history before deciding how to deal with Iran's ambitious dreams of glory. I want a president who understands the relationship between energy policy at home and U.S. interests in the Middle East -- and who's smart enough to form his or her own opinions, not just rely on what old friends in the oil business say.

A HOLLOWED OUT ECONOMY

We get lots of rosy economic statistics from the Bush administration. But the real economy where most of us live isn't very good. I know, like millions of others, I'm making less money than when Bush came into office. That's in real terms, not just with inflation factored in. Everything else is more expensive, from gas to groceries to health care. In the Bush economy wealth "creation" is moving money around. On paper it looks great, but in the real world it doesn't do anything to create jobs or build anything. This article by Larry Beinhart is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

* Jobs: During Bush's first term the US actually lost private-sector jobs.

It finally improved in 2005, and now job creation is almost keeping pace with the increase in population. Still, over all, it's the worst record since Hoover, the fellow who presided over the onset of the Great Depression.

How do you have a recovery without creating jobs?

* Income: Yes, average income is up during the tenure of the current administration.

The joke about average income is: Bill Gates walks into a bar. The average income of every person in the room immediately goes up 10,000 percent.

But median income, the amount that people in the middle of the group earn, barely budges. So let's look at that figure. Median income is down. The average person makes less now than when Bush came into office.

Not only that, the downward pressure on wages is no longer just a blue-collar issue, it's moved up to white-collar workers, the educated classes, even doctors.

June 01, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

CHRISTIAN TERRORISM THROUGH THE AGES

From the talk these days you would think that terrorism was a tactic exclusive to Moslems. But people who call themselves Christians advocate torture and terrorism. In the past, people who called themselves Christians launched the Crusades. This article talks about the scary poll numbers of people who say they are Christian and who support torture and targeting civilian populations in wartime. Interestingly, most Moslems don't support those tactics. This article by Margaret Kimberley is at www.blackagendareport.com:

Christians perpetrated the crusades, the inquisition, the slave trade and imperial adventures too numerous to mention. It may be comforting to pat ourselves on the back and consign those behaviors to past centuries. We are living in the 21st century after all. Who would use the name of the Christian God to justify mass killing? A majority of modern day American Christians, that's who.

Perhaps the argument used against Muslims should be applied to Christians instead. Their religion has been hijacked by fundamentalist fanatics while the non-fanatics remain silent. The term clash of civilizations is definitely a misnomer. There can be no clash unless both sides are in fact civilized. Any assertion of American civilization is clearly open to question.

WAR AND THE RULING CLASS

This article is by a film maker who has completed a documentary about the American ruling class. Members of the ruling class claim there is no such thing as a ruling class. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . . The entrenchment of a ruling class dedicated to the same policies, whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, is inimical to our democracy. As the author points out, war and the threat of war have been used effectively by the ruling class to stall or halt social progress. The article by John Kirby is at www.commondreams.org:

Since President McKinley and the Spanish-American War, overseas adventures have been the oligarchy’s response to the public’s demand for reform. Whether it was Populists or Progressives, rank-and-file Republicans or Democrats leading the charge for domestic change, the major party bosses and their partners on Wall Street have worked together in “collusive harmony,” in the words of political historian Walter Karp, to divert the country from its just demands by embroiling them in deadly foreign entanglements.

Reform movements are an ever-present worry for both parties’ bosses, because any successful reform put forward by regular citizens and insurgents in Congress tends to excite the electorate with the possibility of actually controlling their own government. The ruling class well understands that as the engagement of the citizenry waxes, their own power wanes. And it is war and the threat of war that provide the best excuse for not passing social-welfare legislation, and calling anyone who demands it “unpatriotic.”