January 30, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE DISASTER OF CORPORATE RULE
Jesse Unruh once called money "the mother's milk of politics." We're seeing the hideous results of big money and its influence in our political system. Corporations have touted "free trade." Corporations have waged war against unions and the working class. Corporations have dragged their feet on global climate change. The war in Iraq is more about protecting corporate oil interests than it ever was about a "global war on terror." This article by Peter G. Cohen is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In talking about the current recession and the Washington fix, economists are avoiding the subject of corporate responsibility. The reason that so many people are unable to pay their mortgages is that they are not making enough money and have no savings for an economic slowdown.
The government is limited in its ability to save the economy because an irresponsible Republican majority has supported 'endless' war for American corporate domination, which has been paid for by extensive borrowing. We are in danger of having to pay penalty rates on the debt or losing our national credit cards.
Henry Ford decided to pay $5 a day when most businesses were paying $2. His reason was that he wanted his workers to be able to afford to buy the cars they were making. Many of today's corporations have forgotten that lesson. They have made war on American workers by outsourcing the work to poor foreign peoples eager to work for less. The result is that we have greatly weakened the American consumer, who in turn relies upon credit - whether they can afford it or not.
Monday, January 28, 2008
January 28, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ROMNEY THE JOB SLASHER
In the recent primary campaign in Michigan you would have thought Mitt Romney was a guardian of working class people and working class jobs. Romney has touted himself as experienced in business and said he would bring that expertise to the White House. But the record is that Romney, in his role as businessman, slashed jobs. It's the Republican way to talk about job creation while doing everything possible to eliminate jobs and decent wages. This article by Robert Gavin is at www.boston.com:
In early 1995, as the Ampad paper plant in Marion, Ind., neared its shutdown following a bitter strike, Randy Johnson, a worker and union official, scrawled a personal letter to Mitt Romney, pouring out his disappointment that Romney, then chief executive of the investment firm that controlled Ampad, had not done enough to settle the strike and save some 200 jobs.
"We really thought you might help," Johnson said in the handwritten note, "but instead we heard excuses that were unacceptable from a man of your prominent position."
Romney, who had recently lost a Senate race in which the strike became a flashpoint, responded that he had "privately" urged a settlement, but was advised by lawyers not to intervene directly. His political interests, he explained, conflicted with his business responsibilities.
Now, Romney's decision to stay on the sidelines as his firm, Bain Capital, slashed jobs at the office supply manufacturer stands in marked contrast to his recent pledges to beleaguered auto workers in Michigan and textile workers in South Carolina to "fight to save every job."
IRAQ: TEMPLATE FOR A BAD WAR
John McCain is running as the most militaristic of the very militaristic Republican slate of candidates. McCain has his experience in Vietnam and as a prisoner of war to give him some veneer of credibility on military matters. But being a POW doesn't make you an expert on military strategy. This commentary by P. M. Carpenter talks about past military thinkers like Dwight D. Eisenhower and George Marshall and how they would have viewed this disaster in Iraq. The commentary is at pmcarpenter.blogs.com:
It so happened that when I read that I had just put down a marvelous new work on military history: Mark Perry's Partners in Command, an investigation into the working relationship between Generals George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower. And the meticulously driven subtext of Perry's work is that both of these incisive military minds and, later, shapers of America's foreign policy, would have been appalled -- absolutely aghast -- at the United States' entry into Iraq.
Both would have left aside the question of apologies, because both, quite simply, would have found the intervention utterly inexcusable -- a betrayal of America's political culture, societal way of thinking, and even common sense.
Marshall and Eisenhower thought alike because in the 1920s they had both studied at the feet of a certain General Fox Conner, a military genius of unusual sociopolitical insight as well. And what Conner taught them -- what he hammered away at with singular emphasis -- was that, as Perry succinctly worded it, we were "Never [to] fight unless you have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long." (It was these lessons that Eisenhower had in mind, as president, when he pulled our sorry butts out of Korea's human meat-grinder.)
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ROMNEY THE JOB SLASHER
In the recent primary campaign in Michigan you would have thought Mitt Romney was a guardian of working class people and working class jobs. Romney has touted himself as experienced in business and said he would bring that expertise to the White House. But the record is that Romney, in his role as businessman, slashed jobs. It's the Republican way to talk about job creation while doing everything possible to eliminate jobs and decent wages. This article by Robert Gavin is at www.boston.com:
In early 1995, as the Ampad paper plant in Marion, Ind., neared its shutdown following a bitter strike, Randy Johnson, a worker and union official, scrawled a personal letter to Mitt Romney, pouring out his disappointment that Romney, then chief executive of the investment firm that controlled Ampad, had not done enough to settle the strike and save some 200 jobs.
"We really thought you might help," Johnson said in the handwritten note, "but instead we heard excuses that were unacceptable from a man of your prominent position."
Romney, who had recently lost a Senate race in which the strike became a flashpoint, responded that he had "privately" urged a settlement, but was advised by lawyers not to intervene directly. His political interests, he explained, conflicted with his business responsibilities.
Now, Romney's decision to stay on the sidelines as his firm, Bain Capital, slashed jobs at the office supply manufacturer stands in marked contrast to his recent pledges to beleaguered auto workers in Michigan and textile workers in South Carolina to "fight to save every job."
IRAQ: TEMPLATE FOR A BAD WAR
John McCain is running as the most militaristic of the very militaristic Republican slate of candidates. McCain has his experience in Vietnam and as a prisoner of war to give him some veneer of credibility on military matters. But being a POW doesn't make you an expert on military strategy. This commentary by P. M. Carpenter talks about past military thinkers like Dwight D. Eisenhower and George Marshall and how they would have viewed this disaster in Iraq. The commentary is at pmcarpenter.blogs.com:
It so happened that when I read that I had just put down a marvelous new work on military history: Mark Perry's Partners in Command, an investigation into the working relationship between Generals George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower. And the meticulously driven subtext of Perry's work is that both of these incisive military minds and, later, shapers of America's foreign policy, would have been appalled -- absolutely aghast -- at the United States' entry into Iraq.
Both would have left aside the question of apologies, because both, quite simply, would have found the intervention utterly inexcusable -- a betrayal of America's political culture, societal way of thinking, and even common sense.
Marshall and Eisenhower thought alike because in the 1920s they had both studied at the feet of a certain General Fox Conner, a military genius of unusual sociopolitical insight as well. And what Conner taught them -- what he hammered away at with singular emphasis -- was that, as Perry succinctly worded it, we were "Never [to] fight unless you have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long." (It was these lessons that Eisenhower had in mind, as president, when he pulled our sorry butts out of Korea's human meat-grinder.)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
January 27, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DANGER AND OPPORTUNITY
Troubled economies can produce opportunities, but also present dangers. Adolf Hitler was able to galvanize Germany because the Weimar Republic was suffering hyperinflation. Money was almost worthless. The awful policies of the Bush administration have made our own dollar decline against other currencies like the Euro. We're seeing huge spikes in costs for energy, food, and health care. Many of our good jobs have been sent offshore in the name of globalization and free trade. Like the time of the Great Depression, we have an opportunity to restructure the United States economy. We can get single payer health care, we can rebuild our infrastructure, we can do something meaningful with our education system, and we can make sure working people earn decent wages and benefits. Or we can allow the vultures to privatize everything and reduce most of us to a state of peonage. This column by Naomi Klein is at www.latimes.com:
More than a decade ago, economist Dani Rodrik, then at Columbia University, studied the circumstances in which governments adopted free-trade policies. His findings were striking: "No significant case of trade reform in a developing country in the 1980s took place outside the context of a serious economic crisis." The 1990s proved him right in dramatic fashion. In Russia, an economic meltdown set the stage for fire-sale privatizations. Next, the Asian crisis in 1997-98 cracked open the "Asian tigers" to a frenzy of foreign takeovers, a process the New York Times dubbed "the world's biggest going-out-of-business sale."
To be sure, desperate countries will generally do what it takes to get a bailout. An atmosphere of panic also frees the hands of politicians to quickly push through radical changes that would otherwise be too unpopular, such as privatization of essential services, weakening of worker protections and free-trade deals. In a crisis, debate and democratic process can be handily dismissed as unaffordable luxuries.
Do the free-market policies packaged as emergency cures actually fix the crises at hand? For the ideologues involved, that has mattered little. What matters is that, as a political tactic, disaster capitalism works. It was the late free-market economist Milton Friedman, writing in the preface to the 1982 reissue of his manifesto, "Capitalism and Freedom," who articulated the strategy most succinctly. "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."
DEBAUCHING ADAM SMITH
Adam Smith is the Enlightenment economist whose ideas created a framework for modern day capitalism. Right-wingers like to invoke Adam Smith, ideas about the free market, and the "invisible hand" of the market to suggest that business should be unfettered. But Adam Smith did not believe in the godliness of businessmen. This article by Scott Horton is at www.harpers.org:
One of the idiocies I see trotted out every day in the financial industry’s press is the suggestion that Adam Smith and other great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment–who furnished the basic framework for our current understanding of industrial and post-industrial economics–had limitless faith in entrepreneurs. It is true that they had confidence in the entrepreneurial spirit as a creative engine. But their Calvinist inclinations were anything but unstinting in praise of entrepreneurs as individuals or as a class. Smith notes that the individual businessman will always seek the expansion of his own wealth and power at the cost of others and of society as a whole. So Smith would have fully anticipated, and deplored, the consequences of seven years of Bush’s government of by and for the plutocrats. Socialistic experimentation is not the answer for this. But a sound concept of social fairness in the allocation of the burdens of society certainly is. Government should not unduly burden the entrepreneurial class. But neither should it become a vehicle for transfer of wealth to those who already have the most, while leaving a heavy debt to be borne by those who follow in their wake.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DANGER AND OPPORTUNITY
Troubled economies can produce opportunities, but also present dangers. Adolf Hitler was able to galvanize Germany because the Weimar Republic was suffering hyperinflation. Money was almost worthless. The awful policies of the Bush administration have made our own dollar decline against other currencies like the Euro. We're seeing huge spikes in costs for energy, food, and health care. Many of our good jobs have been sent offshore in the name of globalization and free trade. Like the time of the Great Depression, we have an opportunity to restructure the United States economy. We can get single payer health care, we can rebuild our infrastructure, we can do something meaningful with our education system, and we can make sure working people earn decent wages and benefits. Or we can allow the vultures to privatize everything and reduce most of us to a state of peonage. This column by Naomi Klein is at www.latimes.com:
More than a decade ago, economist Dani Rodrik, then at Columbia University, studied the circumstances in which governments adopted free-trade policies. His findings were striking: "No significant case of trade reform in a developing country in the 1980s took place outside the context of a serious economic crisis." The 1990s proved him right in dramatic fashion. In Russia, an economic meltdown set the stage for fire-sale privatizations. Next, the Asian crisis in 1997-98 cracked open the "Asian tigers" to a frenzy of foreign takeovers, a process the New York Times dubbed "the world's biggest going-out-of-business sale."
To be sure, desperate countries will generally do what it takes to get a bailout. An atmosphere of panic also frees the hands of politicians to quickly push through radical changes that would otherwise be too unpopular, such as privatization of essential services, weakening of worker protections and free-trade deals. In a crisis, debate and democratic process can be handily dismissed as unaffordable luxuries.
Do the free-market policies packaged as emergency cures actually fix the crises at hand? For the ideologues involved, that has mattered little. What matters is that, as a political tactic, disaster capitalism works. It was the late free-market economist Milton Friedman, writing in the preface to the 1982 reissue of his manifesto, "Capitalism and Freedom," who articulated the strategy most succinctly. "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."
DEBAUCHING ADAM SMITH
Adam Smith is the Enlightenment economist whose ideas created a framework for modern day capitalism. Right-wingers like to invoke Adam Smith, ideas about the free market, and the "invisible hand" of the market to suggest that business should be unfettered. But Adam Smith did not believe in the godliness of businessmen. This article by Scott Horton is at www.harpers.org:
One of the idiocies I see trotted out every day in the financial industry’s press is the suggestion that Adam Smith and other great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment–who furnished the basic framework for our current understanding of industrial and post-industrial economics–had limitless faith in entrepreneurs. It is true that they had confidence in the entrepreneurial spirit as a creative engine. But their Calvinist inclinations were anything but unstinting in praise of entrepreneurs as individuals or as a class. Smith notes that the individual businessman will always seek the expansion of his own wealth and power at the cost of others and of society as a whole. So Smith would have fully anticipated, and deplored, the consequences of seven years of Bush’s government of by and for the plutocrats. Socialistic experimentation is not the answer for this. But a sound concept of social fairness in the allocation of the burdens of society certainly is. Government should not unduly burden the entrepreneurial class. But neither should it become a vehicle for transfer of wealth to those who already have the most, while leaving a heavy debt to be borne by those who follow in their wake.
Friday, January 25, 2008
January 25, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GOP AND RECESSION TAG TEAM
I have argued for some time that GOP administrations and bad economies go together. It's no coincidence that every time the GOP is in power the economy takes a major hit. From the time of Herbert Hoover the pattern is clear. You can count on inequality rising, on more poverty, on declining wages, and recessions when Republican policies are in place This article by John Dean is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
As the stock market gyrated wildly this week, given the precarious state of the American economy, the New York Times published a table relating to anti-recession efforts in times past. In scanning it, I could not help but notice that among the last eight recessions, all but the first, in 1948, occurred during Republican presidencies. (The first occurred when Republicans controlled Congress.)
Here are the recessions and their Republican presidents: August 1957 to April 1958 (Eisenhower), April 1960 to February 1961 (Eisenhower), December 1969 to November 1970 (Nixon), November 1973 to March 1975 (Nixon and Ford), July 1981 to November 1982 (Reagan), July 1990 to March 1991 (Reagan), and March 2001 to November 2001 (Bush II).
As we all have watched the stock market this week, thoughts of past major crashes have no doubt popped into the minds of many. Republican presidents oversaw them. Herbert Hoover, of course, was president when the great crash of 1929 occurred, and Ronald Reagan was president with the most recent serious crash - Black Monday in 1987.
The Republican Party has long been the favorite of the business world. But when one steps back to look at the facts objectively - as business leaders who want to remain in business must do, and now seem to be doing - the question must be asked: Is a Republican bias actually good business?
SHORT TERM STIMULUS VS. PERMANENT CURE
The news is abuzz about a forthcoming stimulus package to spark the sagging U. S. economy. But we need more than a brief injection of money into the system. The current system is seriously flawed and there are some basic things we can do to fix it. One of the first is to have a universal health care system. Our current system is a disgrace. Millions of Americans have no insurance at all. Millions more of us have inadequate insurance. A health care crisis means financial ruin. We need a minimum wage that adjusts with inflation. It's astonishing that the federal minimum wage remained at a miserly $5.15 an hour for years while CEO salaries went into the millions of dollars. If education is an answer, as we've been told, it should be easier and more affordable to get an education. College is becoming the province of the rich. We need to end predatory lending practices. Credit card companies and banks are getting away with financial murder. This article by Nomi Prins is at www.alternet.org:
The rhetoric surrounding George W. Bush's economic stimulus package, as boastfully "bi-partisan" as it is (we are, after all, in an election year), indicates a complete lack of comprehension of the difference between this 'national' economy and the 'people's' economy, and the extent of the gap between the two.
The unveiling of his plan was classic Bush: state something ambiguous about a $140 billion adrenaline shot, then have your cronies act as wingmen. Hence, at last Friday's press conference, Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Hank Paulson was left fending off uncomfortable questions like: would the plan help "elderly people on fixed incomes?" His answer: "The Christmas season has come and gone."
The national economy, as measured by large scale figures simply does not represent individual citizens' economic circumstances. That's why debate over whether we are in a recession or not misses the point of everyday financial realities for most of the population. According to the standard definition of recession (two quarters or more of a decline in GDP), we're not there. In which case, Bush and Paulson are technically right in saying the economy is simply 'slow'.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GOP AND RECESSION TAG TEAM
I have argued for some time that GOP administrations and bad economies go together. It's no coincidence that every time the GOP is in power the economy takes a major hit. From the time of Herbert Hoover the pattern is clear. You can count on inequality rising, on more poverty, on declining wages, and recessions when Republican policies are in place This article by John Dean is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
As the stock market gyrated wildly this week, given the precarious state of the American economy, the New York Times published a table relating to anti-recession efforts in times past
Here are the recessions and their Republican presidents: August 1957 to April 1958 (Eisenhower), April 1960 to February 1961 (Eisenhower), December 1969 to November 1970 (Nixon), November 1973 to March 1975 (Nixon and Ford), July 1981 to November 1982 (Reagan), July 1990 to March 1991 (Reagan), and March 2001 to November 2001 (Bush II).
As we all have watched the stock market this week, thoughts of past major crashes have no doubt popped into the minds of many. Republican presidents oversaw them. Herbert Hoover, of course, was president when the great crash of 1929 occurred, and Ronald Reagan was president with the most recent serious crash - Black Monday in 1987.
The Republican Party has long been the favorite of the business world. But when one steps back to look at the facts objectively - as business leaders who want to remain in business must do, and now seem to be doing - the question must be asked: Is a Republican bias actually good business?
SHORT TERM STIMULUS VS. PERMANENT CURE
The news is abuzz about a forthcoming stimulus package to spark the sagging U. S. economy. But we need more than a brief injection of money into the system. The current system is seriously flawed and there are some basic things we can do to fix it. One of the first is to have a universal health care system. Our current system is a disgrace. Millions of Americans have no insurance at all. Millions more of us have inadequate insurance. A health care crisis means financial ruin. We need a minimum wage that adjusts with inflation. It's astonishing that the federal minimum wage remained at a miserly $5.15 an hour for years while CEO salaries went into the millions of dollars. If education is an answer, as we've been told, it should be easier and more affordable to get an education. College is becoming the province of the rich. We need to end predatory lending practices. Credit card companies and banks are getting away with financial murder. This article by Nomi Prins is at www.alternet.org:
The rhetoric surrounding George W. Bush's economic stimulus package, as boastfully "bi-partisan" as it is (we are, after all, in an election year), indicates a complete lack of comprehension of the difference between this 'national' economy and the 'people's' economy, and the extent of the gap between the two.
The unveiling of his plan was classic Bush: state something ambiguous about a $140 billion adrenaline shot, then have your cronies act as wingmen. Hence, at last Friday's press conference, Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Hank Paulson was left fending off uncomfortable questions like: would the plan help "elderly people on fixed incomes?" His answer: "The Christmas season has come and gone."
The national economy, as measured by large scale figures simply does not represent individual citizens' economic circumstances. That's why debate over whether we are in a recession or not misses the point of everyday financial realities for most of the population. According to the standard definition of recession (two quarters or more of a decline in GDP), we're not there. In which case, Bush and Paulson are technically right in saying the economy is simply 'slow'.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
January 24, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH ADMINISTRATION: OVER 900 LIES TO WAR
It's no real surprise to most of us. We have known for some time that the Bush administration constructed a mountain of lies to justify a war with Iraq. But for the sake of history it's important that a new study has documented over 900 lies told by the administration. Bush himself has been documented with over 200 lies. This is no small matter when you consider the carnage rained on Iraq, the deaths and wounding of our own military, the raid on our treasury, and the destruction of our credibility. This article by Frank J. Ranelli is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
A nonprofit collaboration of two independent, non-governmental organizations has concluded that President Bush used at least 532 misleading and deceptively false statements to justify military action against Iraq. In all, the Bush administration as a whole used a mind-numbing 935 false statements to goad America into war with Iraq. Calling their findings “an orchestrated deception on the path to war,” the partnership report may very well be the first fully comprehensive investigation that incontrovertibly proves the Bush administration lied this nation into an unfounded war.
The Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism determined, through a collective study and breakdown of Bush administration speeches, press briefings and interviews, that Bush and other top officials “led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information.”
According to the report, Bush alone lied more than 259 times, including 232 false statements “about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” and “28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida.” Quoting Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, “It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida.” Furthermore, the shared study noted, “the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
ABOUT A YEAR TO GO
The countdown is on in this country and around the world for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to go. I only hope the country isn't suckered into electing another Republican like John McCain or Mitt Romney. The damage the current administration has done will take decades to repair. Some of it can never be undone. Let's hope that we've learned some things. For starters, the man who wins the most votes should win the election. Abolish the Electoral College. Second, we need campaign finance reform. Big donors and corporations shouldn't get to be kingmakers. Third, we need major reform in the media. The media acted as cheerleaders for this atrocity in Iraq. There are countless other reforms we need, but those would be a good start. This column by Patt Morrison is at www.latimes.com:
One year from this very moment, someone other than George Bush will be sliding behind that antique desk in the Oval Office. In embassies and outposts that fly the Stars and Stripes, photographs of a face other than Bush's will be going up on the walls.
At long, long last. It is seven years since Bush plopped down behind that desk, seven years when hope and honor and good faith and goodwill died a little for me, for many other heartsick Americans who love this country, and for millions around the world who looked up to this country.
I say "died," and I mean that. The psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross laid out the basic stages of grief and coming to terms with loss. And Kubler-Ross' five stages track almost perfectly the arc of how we've grappled and grieved over the sickening power crusade of the Bush administration against the nation for these last seven years.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH ADMINISTRATION: OVER 900 LIES TO WAR
It's no real surprise to most of us. We have known for some time that the Bush administration constructed a mountain of lies to justify a war with Iraq. But for the sake of history it's important that a new study has documented over 900 lies told by the administration. Bush himself has been documented with over 200 lies. This is no small matter when you consider the carnage rained on Iraq, the deaths and wounding of our own military, the raid on our treasury, and the destruction of our credibility. This article by Frank J. Ranelli is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
A nonprofit collaboration of two independent, non-governmental organizations has concluded that President Bush used at least 532 misleading and deceptively false statements to justify military action against Iraq. In all, the Bush administration as a whole used a mind-numbing 935 false statements to goad America into war with Iraq. Calling their findings “an orchestrated deception on the path to war,” the partnership report may very well be the first fully comprehensive investigation that incontrovertibly proves the Bush administration lied this nation into an unfounded war.
The Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism determined, through a collective study and breakdown of Bush administration speeches, press briefings and interviews, that Bush and other top officials “led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information.”
According to the report, Bush alone lied more than 259 times, including 232 false statements “about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” and “28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida.” Quoting Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, “It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida.” Furthermore, the shared study noted, “the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
ABOUT A YEAR TO GO
The countdown is on in this country and around the world for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to go. I only hope the country isn't suckered into electing another Republican like John McCain or Mitt Romney. The damage the current administration has done will take decades to repair. Some of it can never be undone. Let's hope that we've learned some things. For starters, the man who wins the most votes should win the election. Abolish the Electoral College. Second, we need campaign finance reform. Big donors and corporations shouldn't get to be kingmakers. Third, we need major reform in the media. The media acted as cheerleaders for this atrocity in Iraq. There are countless other reforms we need, but those would be a good start. This column by Patt Morrison is at www.latimes.com:
One year from this very moment, someone other than George Bush will be sliding behind that antique desk in the Oval Office. In embassies and outposts that fly the Stars and Stripes, photographs of a face other than Bush's will be going up on the walls.
At long, long last. It is seven years since Bush plopped down behind that desk, seven years when hope and honor and good faith and goodwill died a little for me, for many other heartsick Americans who love this country, and for millions around the world who looked up to this country.
I say "died," and I mean that. The psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross laid out the basic stages of grief and coming to terms with loss. And Kubler-Ross' five stages track almost perfectly the arc of how we've grappled and grieved over the sickening power crusade of the Bush administration against the nation for these last seven years.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
January 22, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RESULTS OF DEREGULATION
Right-wingers tell us that the path to the promised land lies in the "free market." You leave the "market" alone and everything works itself out. The biggest gripes right-wingers have voiced about "big government" deal with taxes paid by the rich and with regulation. The Big Bad Government just stifles business, we're told, with too much regulation. As we see the havoc being created by subprime mortgages, we can see the results of too little regulation. The effects are being felt throughout the United States economy and around the world. This article by Robert Weissman is at www.commondreams.org:
The current crisis is the predictable (and predicted) result of a massive U.S. housing bubble, which itself can be traced in part to global economic imbalances that could have been prevented.
At least five distinct regulatory failures led to the current crisis.
Regulatory Failure Number One: Failure to Manage the U.S. Trade Deficit. The housing bubble (as well as the surge in leveraged buyouts of publicly traded companies (”private equity”)) was fueled by cheap credit — low interest rates. One reason for the cheap credit was an influx of capital into the United States from China. China’s capital surplus was the mirror image of the U.S. trade deficit — U.S. corporations were sending lots of dollars to China in exchange for the cheap stuff sold to U.S. consumers.
Regulatory Failure Number Two: Failure to Intervene to Pop the Housing Bubble. Along with an influx of capital, Federal Reserve policy kept interest rates very low. There were good reasons for the Fed Policy, but that did not mean the Fed was helpless to prevent the housing bubble. As economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RESULTS OF DEREGULATION
Right-wingers tell us that the path to the promised land lies in the "free market." You leave the "market" alone and everything works itself out. The biggest gripes right-wingers have voiced about "big government" deal with taxes paid by the rich and with regulation. The Big Bad Government just stifles business, we're told, with too much regulation. As we see the havoc being created by subprime mortgages, we can see the results of too little regulation. The effects are being felt throughout the United States economy and around the world. This article by Robert Weissman is at www.commondreams.org:
The current crisis is the predictable (and predicted) result of a massive U.S. housing bubble, which itself can be traced in part to global economic imbalances that could have been prevented.
At least five distinct regulatory failures led to the current crisis.
Regulatory Failure Number One: Failure to Manage the U.S. Trade Deficit. The housing bubble (as well as the surge in leveraged buyouts of publicly traded companies (”private equity”)) was fueled by cheap credit — low interest rates. One reason for the cheap credit was an influx of capital into the United States from China. China’s capital surplus was the mirror image of the U.S. trade deficit — U.S. corporations were sending lots of dollars to China in exchange for the cheap stuff sold to U.S. consumers.
Regulatory Failure Number Two: Failure to Intervene to Pop the Housing Bubble. Along with an influx of capital, Federal Reserve policy kept interest rates very low. There were good reasons for the Fed Policy, but that did not mean the Fed was helpless to prevent the housing bubble. As economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Monday, January 21, 2008
January 21, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MOURNING IN AMERICA
Since Ronald Reagan left the White House right-wingers have been busily engaged in revisionist history. Supposedly, Reagan's policies created a dynamic economy that created millions of jobs. Reagan, we're told, ended the Cold War because he stood toe-to-toe with the Soviet Union. Reagan supposedly brought back optimism to the country after the depressing 1970's. But facts remain facts. Reagan created massive deficits, enriched the already wealthy, widened the gap between rich and poor, had one of the most corrupt administrations in our history, and presided over massive human rights violations in Central America with his support of the Contras. The real Reagan record isn't pretty. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.nytimes.com:
The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MOURNING IN AMERICA
Since Ronald Reagan left the White House right-wingers have been busily engaged in revisionist history. Supposedly, Reagan's policies created a dynamic economy that created millions of jobs. Reagan, we're told, ended the Cold War because he stood toe-to-toe with the Soviet Union. Reagan supposedly brought back optimism to the country after the depressing 1970's. But facts remain facts. Reagan created massive deficits, enriched the already wealthy, widened the gap between rich and poor, had one of the most corrupt administrations in our history, and presided over massive human rights violations in Central America with his support of the Contras. The real Reagan record isn't pretty. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.nytimes.com:
The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
January 20, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
OBAMA SHOULD LOOK AT THE REAL REAGAN
If he wins the Democratic nomination, I will support Barack Obama for president. But I found it disturbing that he made remarks about Ronald Reagan that could be interpreted as praising Reagan. It was Reagan's administration that set us on the path we are now. We've had a murderous and bloody foreign policy that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In Reagan's time it was a supposed fight against Communism. We've had domestic policies that have smothered the middle class and enriched the already wealthy and corporations. We've ignored problems like global warming and AIDS because Reagan, Bush, and others think they're somehow favored by God and they don't have to take action because the "end times" are here. We haven't taken the obvious necessary and prudent step of creating a health system that protects all our citizens. We have despicable trade policies that have sent countless jobs to other countries in the name of "free trade" and the "free market." This article by Katherine Harris at dandelionsalad.wordpress.com:
Senator Obama, are you tragically uninformed, trying to contrive “unity” by pandering to right-wingers or legitimizing their idol from conviction? Surely we can rule out option one, because you’re entirely too smart to speak and write about matters you haven’t studied seriously. Yes, when Reagan started spouting his political vitriol, you were a child. So was I, a somewhat bigger kid, but his words and deeds are well-documented from the mid-1960s onward. Thus, everything I know about him, you must also know.
For instance, while governor of California, he dehumanized welfare recipients, calling the needy “bums”, “cheats” and “a faceless mass waiting for a handout.” He’d campaigned on cutting funds for the poor, saying, “The time has come to stop being our brother’s keeper”. (Some “Christian” sentiment from one who soon styled himself a righteous Bible-thumper, huh?)
Condemning help for working people who lost their jobs, he sneered, “Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders,” and he dismissed upholding minority rights with this argument: “It doesn’t do good to open doors for someone who doesn’t have the price to get in. If he has the price, he may not need the laws. There is no law saying the Negro has to live in Harlem or Watts.”
DESTRUCTIVE RIGHT-WING ECONOMICS
The dire warnings about the economy are everywhere, so much so that even George W. Bush is pushing for a "stimulus package" to rev up the moribund economy. Why should any of this be a surprise? The Republican administrations of Reagan, Bush, and Bush II have deliberately pursued policies meant to crush working people. Bill Clinton, who some call the best Republican president ever, also pursued policies that hurt working people. We have trade policies that are guaranteed to send jobs to other countries and leave poor-paying service sector jobs in their wake. We have tax policies that were guaranteed to cause massive deficits and consequent cuts to programs that work for working class people. We've seen a deliberate assault on unions and the ability of workers to organize for better wages and benefits. We've seen massive concentration of wealth in a few hands, leaving the rest of us struggling to even survive, even though workers in the United States are the world's most productive. This column by Bob Herbert is at www.nytimes.com:
From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.
The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.
It’s incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
OBAMA SHOULD LOOK AT THE REAL REAGAN
If he wins the Democratic nomination, I will support Barack Obama for president. But I found it disturbing that he made remarks about Ronald Reagan that could be interpreted as praising Reagan. It was Reagan's administration that set us on the path we are now. We've had a murderous and bloody foreign policy that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In Reagan's time it was a supposed fight against Communism. We've had domestic policies that have smothered the middle class and enriched the already wealthy and corporations. We've ignored problems like global warming and AIDS because Reagan, Bush, and others think they're somehow favored by God and they don't have to take action because the "end times" are here. We haven't taken the obvious necessary and prudent step of creating a health system that protects all our citizens. We have despicable trade policies that have sent countless jobs to other countries in the name of "free trade" and the "free market." This article by Katherine Harris at dandelionsalad.wordpress.com:
Senator Obama, are you tragically uninformed, trying to contrive “unity” by pandering to right-wingers or legitimizing their idol from conviction? Surely we can rule out option one, because you’re entirely too smart to speak and write about matters you haven’t studied seriously. Yes, when Reagan started spouting his political vitriol, you were a child. So was I, a somewhat bigger kid, but his words and deeds are well-documented from the mid-1960s onward. Thus, everything I know about him, you must also know.
For instance, while governor of California, he dehumanized welfare recipients, calling the needy “bums”, “cheats” and “a faceless mass waiting for a handout.” He’d campaigned on cutting funds for the poor, saying, “The time has come to stop being our brother’s keeper”. (Some “Christian” sentiment from one who soon styled himself a righteous Bible-thumper, huh?)
Condemning help for working people who lost their jobs, he sneered, “Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders,” and he dismissed upholding minority rights with this argument: “It doesn’t do good to open doors for someone who doesn’t have the price to get in. If he has the price, he may not need the laws. There is no law saying the Negro has to live in Harlem or Watts.”
DESTRUCTIVE RIGHT-WING ECONOMICS
The dire warnings about the economy are everywhere, so much so that even George W. Bush is pushing for a "stimulus package" to rev up the moribund economy. Why should any of this be a surprise? The Republican administrations of Reagan, Bush, and Bush II have deliberately pursued policies meant to crush working people. Bill Clinton, who some call the best Republican president ever, also pursued policies that hurt working people. We have trade policies that are guaranteed to send jobs to other countries and leave poor-paying service sector jobs in their wake. We have tax policies that were guaranteed to cause massive deficits and consequent cuts to programs that work for working class people. We've seen a deliberate assault on unions and the ability of workers to organize for better wages and benefits. We've seen massive concentration of wealth in a few hands, leaving the rest of us struggling to even survive, even though workers in the United States are the world's most productive. This column by Bob Herbert is at www.nytimes.com:
From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.
The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.
It’s incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
January 19, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORKING CLASS
You can categorize the population of the United States in lots of ways. You can divide us by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by sexual orientation, by martial status, by religious affiliation and so on. But one thing the most of us share is that we are working class. Economics matter. I hope that Democratic candidates will not focus so much on "identity politics" that they lose sight of the working class. This article by E. J. Dionne is at www.washingtonpost.com:
Still, there will be inexorable pressure on both candidates to use identity politics for their own purposes. Gender solidarity was important to Clinton's campaign-saving victory in New Hampshire, and it could help her again. African American support will be valuable to Obama, especially in the Democrats' South Carolina primary on Jan. 26.
But the long term is another matter. To build a majority this fall and make history, both candidates would need a lot of help from a group with its own reasons to be discontented: the white working class.
"Working class" seems an antique term, but the people it describes still exist, more now in the service industries than in manufacturing. Demographers often use education levels as a surrogate for class position, and the past three decades have not been kind to Americans who are not college graduates.
BAD ECONOMICS 101
The Bush administration and Republican administrations in general demonstrate how not to run an economy. We've seen trickle down economics in various forms in all Republican administrations. In the Reagan and two Bush administrations we've seen trickle down economics on steroids. The country has been transformed from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. We've seen our manufacturing sector mostly disassembled and sent abroad. We've seen a growing middle class under attack and starting to disappear. We've seen stability in our financial sector undermined. This article by Larry Beinhart is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The idea under which Bushenomics was sold is this:
The rich are the investor class.
If the rich have more money, they will invest more.
Their investments will create more business.
Those businesses will create more wealth, thus improving everyone's lives and making the nation stronger. They will also create new and better jobs.
Whether or not the people who say such things truly believe them, I cannot say. But that's their pitch, and the media certainly seems to buy it, as do most of the establishment economists.
A more realistic -- and less idealistic -- view of Bushenomics is that the Bush administration and its cronies came at the economy with the attitude of oilmen.
They inherited a vastly wealth country.
They looked at it like the oil under the Alaskan wilderness. They craved to pump it out, turn it into cash and grab as much of that cash as possible.
Wherever possible, they literally sold off the assets. This was called privatization. Our biggest asset -- in terms of size -- is, of course, our defense establishment. With privatization, one dollar out of every three for direct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan goes to private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. So when someone says, "Support the troops!" with budget appropriations, they should really yell, "Two-thirds support to the troops! One third support to Halliburton, et al.!"
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORKING CLASS
You can categorize the population of the United States in lots of ways. You can divide us by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by sexual orientation, by martial status, by religious affiliation and so on. But one thing the most of us share is that we are working class. Economics matter. I hope that Democratic candidates will not focus so much on "identity politics" that they lose sight of the working class. This article by E. J. Dionne is at www.washingtonpost.com:
Still, there will be inexorable pressure on both candidates to use identity politics for their own purposes. Gender solidarity was important to Clinton's campaign-saving victory in New Hampshire, and it could help her again. African American support will be valuable to Obama, especially in the Democrats' South Carolina
But the long term is another matter. To build a majority this fall and make history, both candidates would need a lot of help from a group with its own reasons to be discontented: the white working class.
"Working class" seems an antique term, but the people it describes still exist, more now in the service industries than in manufacturing. Demographers often use education levels as a surrogate for class position, and the past three decades have not been kind to Americans who are not college graduates.
BAD ECONOMICS 101
The Bush administration and Republican administrations in general demonstrate how not to run an economy. We've seen trickle down economics in various forms in all Republican administrations. In the Reagan and two Bush administrations we've seen trickle down economics on steroids. The country has been transformed from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. We've seen our manufacturing sector mostly disassembled and sent abroad. We've seen a growing middle class under attack and starting to disappear. We've seen stability in our financial sector undermined. This article by Larry Beinhart is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The idea under which Bushenomics was sold is this:
The rich are the investor class.
If the rich have more money, they will invest more.
Their investments will create more business.
Those businesses will create more wealth, thus improving everyone's lives and making the nation stronger. They will also create new and better jobs.
Whether or not the people who say such things truly believe them, I cannot say. But that's their pitch, and the media certainly seems to buy it, as do most of the establishment economists.
A more realistic -- and less idealistic -- view of Bushenomics is that the Bush administration and its cronies came at the economy with the attitude of oilmen.
They inherited a vastly wealth country.
They looked at it like the oil under the Alaskan wilderness. They craved to pump it out, turn it into cash and grab as much of that cash as possible.
Wherever possible, they literally sold off the assets. This was called privatization. Our biggest asset -- in terms of size -- is, of course, our defense establishment. With privatization, one dollar out of every three for direct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan goes to private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. So when someone says, "Support the troops!" with budget appropriations, they should really yell, "Two-thirds support to the troops! One third support to Halliburton, et al.!"
Friday, January 18, 2008
January 18, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TIME FOR TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS
Republican style economics have been tried several times in the past 100 years or so. Every time they've been a disaster. We got the Great Depression with Hoover. We got recessions under Eisenhower. We had stagflation under Nixon and Ford. We've had huge deficits and inequality under Reagan, Bush, and under the second Bush. Instead of constantly cutting taxes for the rich, and claiming the benefits will trickle down to us, which they haven't, let's cut taxes for the majority of us. This article by Stephen Pizzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
1) Revoke the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%
2) Shift those cuts to reduce the payroll tax by the same amount.
That's it. A two-point economic stimulus package that will pump $1 trillion into the pockets of American consumers. And, rather than that money flowing into family trusts and other paper investments, it will get spent, piece by orderly piece, each week, every week, forever. So, if congress is itching to make a tax cut permanent, that's the one -- a payroll tax cut.
The beneficiaries of the Bush tax cut had their chance to prove the trickle-down theory, and failed -- just as they failed the last time it was tried by Ronald Reagan. Both attempts left America saddled by back-breaking deficits and debt. Both attempts enriched the already enriched at the expense of middle class working Americans.
They had their chance. Now give trickle up economics a chance. Revoke the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% and give them to working Americans.
Then, just so they feel like they're getting a piece of this new action, send each of America's top 1% earners a government check for $300 as their share of our economic stimulus package -- with our compliments.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TIME FOR TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS
Republican style economics have been tried several times in the past 100 years or so. Every time they've been a disaster. We got the Great Depression with Hoover. We got recessions under Eisenhower. We had stagflation under Nixon and Ford. We've had huge deficits and inequality under Reagan, Bush, and under the second Bush. Instead of constantly cutting taxes for the rich, and claiming the benefits will trickle down to us, which they haven't, let's cut taxes for the majority of us. This article by Stephen Pizzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
1) Revoke the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%
2) Shift those cuts to reduce the payroll tax by the same amount.
That's it. A two-point economic stimulus package that will pump $1 trillion into the pockets of American consumers. And, rather than that money flowing into family trusts and other paper investments, it will get spent, piece by orderly piece, each week, every week, forever. So, if congress is itching to make a tax cut permanent, that's the one -- a payroll tax cut.
The beneficiaries of the Bush tax cut had their chance to prove the trickle-down theory, and failed -- just as they failed the last time it was tried by Ronald Reagan. Both attempts left America saddled by back-breaking deficits and debt. Both attempts enriched the already enriched at the expense of middle class working Americans.
They had their chance. Now give trickle up economics a chance. Revoke the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% and give them to working Americans.
Then, just so they feel like they're getting a piece of this new action, send each of America's top 1% earners a government check for $300 as their share of our economic stimulus package -- with our compliments.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
January 15, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
KEEP IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE
Because of the reticence of Democrats in Congress, and the obstructions presented by Republicans, it doesn't appear that Bush and Cheney will be impeached before next year. However, there is precedent for impeaching federal officials after they have left office. I believe for the sake of the Constitution, for precedent, and for history that Bush and Cheney should be impeached and brought to trial. This article by Jon Ponder is at www.pensitorereview.com:
The purpose of a post-term impeachment of Bush and Cheney would be to send a message to future rightwing cabals who intend to highjack the American republic that they do so at their own peril — that they will be brought to justice.
A strong case can be made that if Pres. Nixon had been impeached, followed by a trial and conviction in court on the obstruction of justice and other charges and sentenced to prison, even briefly, Bush and particularly Cheney would have felt less emboldened to behave like despots. (In fact, it’s doubtful Cheney would have been interested in the vice presidency if he’d felt constrained from looting the government for his corporate cronies.)
Just as hindsight shows that Americans 30 years ago could have prevented the abuses of Bush and Cheney by prosecuting and imprisoning Nixon in 1974, we owe it to future generations of Americans to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes and incompetence today.
If the move for post-term impeachments took hold, Republicans would doubtless object — but just seven years ago it was GOP legal types who floated the idea of a post-presidential, second impeachment Pres. Clinton because they didn’t like the pardons he granted as he left office.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
KEEP IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE
Because of the reticence of Democrats in Congress, and the obstructions presented by Republicans, it doesn't appear that Bush and Cheney will be impeached before next year. However, there is precedent for impeaching federal officials after they have left office. I believe for the sake of the Constitution, for precedent, and for history that Bush and Cheney should be impeached and brought to trial. This article by Jon Ponder is at www.pensitorereview.com:
The purpose of a post-term impeachment of Bush and Cheney would be to send a message to future rightwing cabals who intend to highjack the American republic that they do so at their own peril — that they will be brought to justice.
A strong case can be made that if Pres. Nixon had been impeached, followed by a trial and conviction in court on the obstruction of justice and other charges
Just as hindsight shows that Americans 30 years ago could have prevented the abuses of Bush and Cheney by prosecuting and imprisoning Nixon in 1974, we owe it to future generations of Americans to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes and incompetence today.
If the move for post-term impeachments took hold, Republicans would doubtless object — but just seven years ago it was GOP legal types who floated the idea of a post-presidential, second impeachment Pres. Clinton
Sunday, January 13, 2008
January 13, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THEIR ATTACKS GET MORE INANE
Their own ideology is so toxic conservatives twist themselves into knots to criticize the left. Ann Coulter has made lots of money writing trashy books attacking liberals. There has been a history of conservative "intellectuals" defending the indefensible, such as William F. Buckley praising Spanish dictator Francisco Franco. Now we have Jonah Goldberg saying that we on the left are "fascists." He needs to make up his mind. The right usually calls us Communists and, as I recall, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. This article by Brad Reed looks at Goldberg's tome Liberal Fascism. The article is at www.alternet.org:
While a lot of this stuff is easy to laugh off, some of Goldberg's historical revisionism is downright sickening. In one particularly grotesque passage, he tries to obfuscate the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals by calling their attitudes toward homosexuality "a source of confusion." Oh sure, he writes, "some homosexuals were sent to concentration camps," but it's also true that the early Nazi party was "rife with homosexuals." I'm sure the 100,000 men who were arrested for being homosexuals in Nazi Germany, as well as the thousands more who died in concentration camps, were proud to see their brethren so well-represented in the SS.
Most stunningly, Goldberg completely glosses over the American Right's support for any fascist governments, stating that "no leading conservative intellectual or scholar celebrated fascist themes or ideas" and that "to the contrary, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr. and the conservatives around the National Review dedicated themselves to restoring the classically liberal vision of the Founders." He must not have read Buckley's "Letter from Spain" dated Oct. 26, 1957, where he praised Gen. Francisco Franco as "an authentic national hero" who was "not an oppressive dictator" but rather "only as oppressive as it is necessary to be to maintain total power, and that, it happens, is not very oppressive, for the people, by and large, are content."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THEIR ATTACKS GET MORE INANE
Their own ideology is so toxic conservatives twist themselves into knots to criticize the left. Ann Coulter has made lots of money writing trashy books attacking liberals. There has been a history of conservative "intellectuals" defending the indefensible, such as William F. Buckley praising Spanish dictator Francisco Franco. Now we have Jonah Goldberg saying that we on the left are "fascists." He needs to make up his mind. The right usually calls us Communists and, as I recall, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. This article by Brad Reed looks at Goldberg's tome Liberal Fascism. The article is at www.alternet.org:
While a lot of this stuff is easy to laugh off, some of Goldberg's historical revisionism is downright sickening. In one particularly grotesque passage, he tries to obfuscate the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals by calling their attitudes toward homosexuality "a source of confusion." Oh sure, he writes, "some homosexuals were sent to concentration camps," but it's also true that the early Nazi party was "rife with homosexuals." I'm sure the 100,000 men who were arrested for being homosexuals in Nazi Germany, as well as the thousands more who died in concentration camps, were proud to see their brethren so well-represented in the SS.
Most stunningly, Goldberg completely glosses over the American Right's support for any fascist governments, stating that "no leading conservative intellectual or scholar celebrated fascist themes or ideas" and that "to the contrary, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr. and the conservatives around the National Review dedicated themselves to restoring the classically liberal vision of the Founders." He must not have read Buckley's "Letter from Spain" dated Oct. 26, 1957, where he praised Gen. Francisco Franco as "an authentic national hero" who was "not an oppressive dictator" but rather "only as oppressive as it is necessary to be to maintain total power, and that, it happens, is not very oppressive, for the people, by and large, are content."
Saturday, January 12, 2008
January 11, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BIG GOVERNMENT IS OKAY FOR SOME
Conservatives snarl about "big government." They moan about the taxes they pay and just how unfair it is. But they have no problem with big government snooping on us, trampling on civil liberties, or doling out big cash to corporations. If you run a small business and get into financial trouble, you're on your own, pal. But if you run a big corporation you just run to the government and get a bailout. It's happened time and time again. This article by Jon Faulkner is a good dissection of the hypocrisy and greed of conservatives. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Republicans, with their corporate sponsors, constantly rail against big government. Grover Norquist is a conservative activist and a lobbyist who famously said of government, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Grover is another one of those conservative republicans who offer such gems of wisdom in spite of government’s traditional role of bailing out one American corporation after the next.
The airline industry, the auto makers, defense contractors, railroads, the oil industry, the utilities industry, the telecommunications industry, the savings and loan industry, and now perhaps the biggest bailout of them all - even edging out the S&L catastrophe - the housing industry. Without the generous contributions that American taxpayers make every year, a great many American corporations would be floating belly up, wherever it was that their management made their last, stupid decision.
Public subsidies, tax abatements, low interest loan guarantees, political favors, price supports and free trade agreements. Corporations would have folded up and blown away long ago if not for massive, government infusions of taxpayer cash. Republicans worship the market place and tout its wondrous abilities to solve all financial problems if only government would get out of the way and let the magic work. Of course, when it falls on its ass, the corporate model of perfection comes, cup in hand, to the nasty ol’ gubmint for its salvation.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BIG GOVERNMENT IS OKAY FOR SOME
Conservatives snarl about "big government." They moan about the taxes they pay and just how unfair it is. But they have no problem with big government snooping on us, trampling on civil liberties, or doling out big cash to corporations. If you run a small business and get into financial trouble, you're on your own, pal. But if you run a big corporation you just run to the government and get a bailout. It's happened time and time again. This article by Jon Faulkner is a good dissection of the hypocrisy and greed of conservatives. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Republicans, with their corporate sponsors, constantly rail against big government. Grover Norquist is a conservative activist and a lobbyist who famously said of government, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Grover is another one of those conservative republicans who offer such gems of wisdom in spite of government’s traditional role of bailing out one American corporation after the next.
The airline industry, the auto makers, defense contractors, railroads, the oil industry, the utilities industry, the telecommunications industry, the savings and loan industry, and now perhaps the biggest bailout of them all - even edging out the S&L catastrophe - the housing industry. Without the generous contributions that American taxpayers make every year, a great many American corporations would be floating belly up, wherever it was that their management made their last, stupid decision.
Public subsidies, tax abatements, low interest loan guarantees, political favors, price supports and free trade agreements. Corporations would have folded up and blown away long ago if not for massive, government infusions of taxpayer cash. Republicans worship the market place and tout its wondrous abilities to solve all financial problems if only government would get out of the way and let the magic work. Of course, when it falls on its ass, the corporate model of perfection comes, cup in hand, to the nasty ol’ gubmint for its salvation.
Friday, January 11, 2008
January 11, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ANY DEM OVER ANY REPUBLICAN
Republicans at all levels of government represent big business and the status quo. Progress in so many areas--economic, civil rights, the environment, women's rights--have been advanced by Democrats with Republicans obstructing every step of the way. My first choice is John Edwards, but I will vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama if they get the nomination. Jon Carroll has some thoughts at www.sfgate.com:
Who am I kidding? I'm gonna vote for the Democratic nominee for president whoever it is. I am delighted that Mitt Romney will soon be taking a well-earned vacation, and I admit to rooting for Anybody But Mitt for a while, but that was visceral distaste rather than considered political judgment. Indeed, I suspect that a lot of Republicans shared my visceral distaste, and if I were one of Romney's children I'd be saying, "Daddy, where's my patrimony?"
But Clinton or Obama or Edwards - all fine with me. Bill Richardson would have been fine too. There are areas in which we disagree, but the heck with it - this isn't Match.com. Stopping the bleeding on the Supreme Court is numero uno, and they'll all do that. Sign the damn Kyoto Accords and stop the United States from being the spoiled, whiny child of international diplomacy - they'll all do that.
But Clinton or Obama or Edwards - all fine with me. Bill Richardson would have been fine too. There are areas in which we disagree, but the heck with it - this isn't Match.com. Stopping the bleeding on the Supreme Court is numero uno, and they'll all do that. Sign the damn Kyoto Accords and stop the United States from being the spoiled, whiny child of international diplomacy - they'll all do that.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ANY DEM OVER ANY REPUBLICAN
Republicans at all levels of government represent big business and the status quo. Progress in so many areas--economic, civil rights, the environment, women's rights--have been advanced by Democrats with Republicans obstructing every step of the way. My first choice is John Edwards, but I will vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama if they get the nomination. Jon Carroll has some thoughts at www.sfgate.com:
Who am I kidding? I'm gonna vote for the Democratic nominee for president whoever it is. I am delighted that Mitt Romney will soon be taking a well-earned vacation, and I admit to rooting for Anybody But Mitt for a while, but that was visceral distaste rather than considered political judgment. Indeed, I suspect that a lot of Republicans shared my visceral distaste, and if I were one of Romney's children I'd be saying, "Daddy, where's my patrimony?"
But Clinton or Obama or Edwards - all fine with me. Bill Richardson would have been fine too. There are areas in which we disagree, but the heck with it - this isn't Match.com. Stopping the bleeding on the Supreme Court is numero uno, and they'll all do that. Sign the damn Kyoto Accords and stop the United States from being the spoiled, whiny child of international diplomacy - they'll all do that.
But Clinton or Obama or Edwards - all fine with me. Bill Richardson would have been fine too. There are areas in which we disagree, but the heck with it - this isn't Match.com. Stopping the bleeding on the Supreme Court is numero uno, and they'll all do that. Sign the damn Kyoto Accords and stop the United States from being the spoiled, whiny child of international diplomacy - they'll all do that.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
January 10, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CULT OF GROWTH
If the stock market is on the upswing, everything is great, right? If the GDP is growing, the economy is sound, right? Not quite. We've heard the Bush administration and the pundits tell us about low unemployment and a growing economy for years, but things aren't wonderful for most of us. The true unemployment rate is far higher than the official statistics. Wages and benefits are stagnating or declining for most of us. This article by Barbara Ehrenreich is at www.commondreams.org:
The soothsayers have slaughtered the ox and are examining the gloppy entrails for signs: rising unemployment, a falling dollar, weak consumer spending, the credit crisis, a swooning stock market. Could there be something wrong here? Could we actually be approaching a, God forbid, recession?
To which the only sane response is: Who cares? According to a CNN poll, 57 percent of Americans thought we were already in a recession a month ago. Economists may complain that this is only because the public is ignorant of the technical–or at least the newspapers’ standard–definition of a recession, which specifies that there must be at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP. But most of the public employs the more colloquial definition of a recession, which is hard times. If hard times have already fallen on a majority of Americans, then “recession” doesn’t seem to be a very useful term any more.
The economists’ odd fixation on growth as a measure of economic well-being puts them in a parallel universe of their own. WorldMoneyWatch
But hellooo, we’ve had brisk growth for the last few years, as the President always likes to remind us, only without those promised increases in personal income, at least not for the middle class. Growth, some of the economists are conceding in perplexity, has been “de-coupled” from mass prosperity.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CULT OF GROWTH
If the stock market is on the upswing, everything is great, right? If the GDP is growing, the economy is sound, right? Not quite. We've heard the Bush administration and the pundits tell us about low unemployment and a growing economy for years, but things aren't wonderful for most of us. The true unemployment rate is far higher than the official statistics. Wages and benefits are stagnating or declining for most of us. This article by Barbara Ehrenreich is at www.commondreams.org:
The soothsayers have slaughtered the ox and are examining the gloppy entrails for signs: rising unemployment, a falling dollar, weak consumer spending, the credit crisis, a swooning stock market. Could there be something wrong here? Could we actually be approaching a, God forbid, recession?
To which the only sane response is: Who cares? According to a CNN poll, 57 percent of Americans thought we were already in a recession a month ago. Economists may complain that this is only because the public is ignorant of the technical–or at least the newspapers’ standard–definition of a recession, which specifies that there must be at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP. But most of the public employs the more colloquial definition of a recession, which is hard times. If hard times have already fallen on a majority of Americans, then “recession” doesn’t seem to be a very useful term any more.
The economists’ odd fixation on growth as a measure of economic well-being puts them in a parallel universe of their own. WorldMoneyWatch
But hellooo, we’ve had brisk growth for the last few years, as the President always likes to remind us, only without those promised increases in personal income, at least not for the middle class. Growth, some of the economists are conceding in perplexity, has been “de-coupled” from mass prosperity.
Monday, January 07, 2008
January 07, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BEWARE "THE SUITS"
One of the cliches from the silent movie days was the evil banker tying the innocent widow to the railroad tracks. But maybe they knew something about bankers. These days they wear the expensive suits and run countless commercials on TV and send out tons of credit card offers, but they're just as corrupt and despicable as a leg-breaking loan shark. "Respectable" bankers will jack up your interest rates on the slightest pretext, hit you for usurious fees for being one day late with a payment, or ding you with countless fees on a checking account. This article by Susan J. Douglas is linked at www.alternet.org:
The barely regulated banks are getting away with one usurious practice after the next: In addition to the subprime fiasco now threatening the entire economy, there are the extortionate service fees on your bank accounts and the escalating interest fees, late fees and truncated payment cycles on your credit cards. Millions of us now get credit card bills that give us 10 days -- and those aren't 10 business days -- to pay up or get hit with a late fee. No wonder the credit card industry has been one of the most profitable in the country, earning on the order of $30 billion annually. The rates credit card companies charge retailers have gone up 85 percent since 2001, and those are passed onto us.
In 2005, Congress passed the infamous bankruptcy "reform" act after major lobbying by the financial-industrial complex, adding to the enormous pressure many people are feeling from the mortgage-housing-credit crisis. Designed to protect creditors, the law makes it harder and more expensive to declare bankruptcy.
It used to be that people in financial trouble could file under Chapter 7, which typically allowed them to keep their homes while other property was sold off to help cover credit card and medical debts. What pissed off the banks was that, after flooding everyone with offers to acquire even more credit cards, some of this debt would get massively reduced or written off under the old law.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BEWARE "THE SUITS"
One of the cliches from the silent movie days was the evil banker tying the innocent widow to the railroad tracks. But maybe they knew something about bankers. These days they wear the expensive suits and run countless commercials on TV and send out tons of credit card offers, but they're just as corrupt and despicable as a leg-breaking loan shark. "Respectable" bankers will jack up your interest rates on the slightest pretext, hit you for usurious fees for being one day late with a payment, or ding you with countless fees on a checking account. This article by Susan J. Douglas is linked at www.alternet.org:
The barely regulated banks are getting away with one usurious practice after the next: In addition to the subprime fiasco now threatening the entire economy, there are the extortionate service fees on your bank accounts and the escalating interest fees, late fees and truncated payment cycles on your credit cards. Millions of us now get credit card bills that give us 10 days -- and those aren't 10 business days -- to pay up or get hit with a late fee. No wonder the credit card industry has been one of the most profitable in the country, earning on the order of $30 billion annually. The rates credit card companies charge retailers have gone up 85 percent since 2001, and those are passed onto us.
In 2005, Congress passed the infamous bankruptcy "reform" act after major lobbying by the financial-industrial complex, adding to the enormous pressure many people are feeling from the mortgage-housing-credit crisis. Designed to protect creditors, the law makes it harder and more expensive to declare bankruptcy.
It used to be that people in financial trouble could file under Chapter 7, which typically allowed them to keep their homes while other property was sold off to help cover credit card and medical debts. What pissed off the banks was that, after flooding everyone with offers to acquire even more credit cards, some of this debt would get massively reduced or written off under the old law.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
January 06, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT'S THE ECONOMY AGAINThe old saying is that people who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. How many times do we have to see Republican economic policies at work and the destruction they cause to finally realize that Republican economics are a disaster? The most obvious example is the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover. But under Nixon we got "stagflation," a combination of high inflation and a stagnant economy. That continued under Ford. When Reagan came into office we had record high interest rates, designed to "squeeze" inflation out of the economy. Never mind all the jobs lost in the process. Then we had record deficits under Reagan and George H. W. Bush and only modest job growth. Under the current Bush we again have horrifying deficits, inflation of necessities like energy and food, and stagnant wages. Unemployment figures are also starting to tick up. Democrats in the presidential race need to emphasize economic issues more. Katrina Vanden Heuvel looks at the message from John Edwards in this article at www.thenation.com:
It was left to Edwards to speak personally and passionately about the desperate need for a new tax and trade policy. His was a more hopeful message Saturday night-with empathy for a struggling middle class, with talk about uniting and galvanizing the American people to take on entrenched interests and end "the stranglehold on our democracy." He modulated his full-throated attacks on corporations--tonight targeting "irresponsible" corporations and applauding those like Costco which do better by their workers. But he remained true to his fighting for change spirit. When challenged by the others about the limits of "fighting" as a way to get things done, Edwards shot back," you cannot nice these people to death; I am not in a fight *with* the American people but *for* the people." If Edwards does exit the field,and it's hard to see how there's room for two "change agents" coming out of NH, the economic facts on the ground -- housing crisis, job losses-- should move Obama and Clinton to adopt key elements, if not the style, of Edwards' populist message and program. They'd be smart to do so. There was one revealing moment which helps explain why fair, simple and sane progressive economic proposals get such a raw deal in our corporate- owned media. It also explains why pundits label Edwards' agenda "angry." When the majority-supported reform of rolling back tax cuts for the rich drew support from the Democrats, ABC moderator & Nightly News anchor Charles Gibson seemed clueless about middle class reality. Wouldn't such a reform, he demanded, hurt a couple made up of two professors at St. Anselm's who make $200,000 a year. $200,000!? The titter in St Anselm's hall spread quickly. Maybe Gibson could use a crash Econ 101 course: "The Strapped American Middle Class."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT'S THE ECONOMY AGAINThe old saying is that people who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. How many times do we have to see Republican economic policies at work and the destruction they cause to finally realize that Republican economics are a disaster? The most obvious example is the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover. But under Nixon we got "stagflation," a combination of high inflation and a stagnant economy. That continued under Ford. When Reagan came into office we had record high interest rates, designed to "squeeze" inflation out of the economy. Never mind all the jobs lost in the process. Then we had record deficits under Reagan and George H. W. Bush and only modest job growth. Under the current Bush we again have horrifying deficits, inflation of necessities like energy and food, and stagnant wages. Unemployment figures are also starting to tick up. Democrats in the presidential race need to emphasize economic issues more. Katrina Vanden Heuvel looks at the message from John Edwards in this article at www.thenation.com:
It was left to Edwards to speak personally and passionately about the desperate need for a new tax and trade policy. His was a more hopeful message Saturday night-with empathy for a struggling middle class, with talk about uniting and galvanizing the American people to take on entrenched interests and end "the stranglehold on our democracy." He modulated his full-throated attacks on corporations--tonight targeting "irresponsible" corporations and applauding those like Costco which do better by their workers. But he remained true to his fighting for change spirit. When challenged by the others about the limits of "fighting" as a way to get things done, Edwards shot back," you cannot nice these people to death; I am not in a fight *with* the American people but *for* the people." If Edwards does exit the field,and it's hard to see how there's room for two "change agents" coming out of NH, the economic facts on the ground -- housing crisis, job losses-- should move Obama and Clinton to adopt key elements, if not the style, of Edwards' populist message and program. They'd be smart to do so. There was one revealing moment which helps explain why fair, simple and sane progressive economic proposals get such a raw deal in our corporate- owned media. It also explains why pundits label Edwards' agenda "angry." When the majority-supported reform of rolling back tax cuts for the rich drew support from the Democrats, ABC moderator & Nightly News anchor Charles Gibson seemed clueless about middle class reality. Wouldn't such a reform, he demanded, hurt a couple made up of two professors at St. Anselm's who make $200,000 a year. $200,000!? The titter in St Anselm's hall spread quickly. Maybe Gibson could use a crash Econ 101 course: "The Strapped American Middle Class."
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
January 02, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LOOKING LIKE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY
The jingoists among us like to wave the flag and chant, "We're number one!" But the United States isn't number one in the categories we'd like to be. We're number one in things like military expenditures, but we bear a disturbing resemblance to third world nations in inequality, poverty, and the size of our prison population. This article by Arthur Donner and Doug Peters is at www.commondreams.org:
What is usually meant by a Third World economy? A half-century ago, the term was associated with the economically underdeveloped countries of Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania. The common characteristics of these Third World countries were high levels of poverty, income inequality, high birth rates and an economic dependence upon the advanced countries. Third World countries were simply not as industrialized or technologically advanced as Western countries.
But what are some of the distinguishing characteristics of contemporary Third World countries? They go beyond these nations’ fiscal position or undue concentration on natural resource exports.
The glaring features today include poverty, lack of democratic institutions, controlling oligarchies and the unequal distribution of income and wealth. In other words, the few enjoy a rich lifestyle while the many share subpar incomes and poverty.
Another characteristic of Third World countries is that a major portion of their fiscal expenditures is allocated to the military. In many Third World countries, the military is controlled by an elite or a small collection of the wealthy.
Finally, in many Third World countries one finds that leadership is passed from one generation to the next, often via a close relative.
Guess what country we are talking about now?
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
LOOKING LIKE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY
The jingoists among us like to wave the flag and chant, "We're number one!" But the United States isn't number one in the categories we'd like to be. We're number one in things like military expenditures, but we bear a disturbing resemblance to third world nations in inequality, poverty, and the size of our prison population. This article by Arthur Donner and Doug Peters is at www.commondreams.org:
What is usually meant by a Third World economy? A half-century ago, the term was associated with the economically underdeveloped countries of Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania. The common characteristics of these Third World countries were high levels of poverty, income inequality, high birth rates and an economic dependence upon the advanced countries. Third World countries were simply not as industrialized or technologically advanced as Western countries.
But what are some of the distinguishing characteristics of contemporary Third World countries? They go beyond these nations’ fiscal position or undue concentration on natural resource exports.
The glaring features today include poverty, lack of democratic institutions, controlling oligarchies and the unequal distribution of income and wealth. In other words, the few enjoy a rich lifestyle while the many share subpar incomes and poverty.
Another characteristic of Third World countries is that a major portion of their fiscal expenditures is allocated to the military. In many Third World countries, the military is controlled by an elite or a small collection of the wealthy.
Finally, in many Third World countries one finds that leadership is passed from one generation to the next, often via a close relative.
Guess what country we are talking about now?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
January 1, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DISASTERS EVERYWHERE
The Hippocratic Oath that physicians take advises, "First, do no harm." Politicians should have a similar standard. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will leave the world much worse off than when they assumed power. In all the vital areas that can be influenced by a presidential administration things are worse. The economy is worse, the gap between rich and poor is worse, the state of health care is worse, education is worse, housing is worse, deficits are worse, the environment is worse, and foreign policy is far, far worse. This article takes a look at Bush's "twilight year" and the dismal legacy being left behind. The article by Jim Lobe is at www.commondreams.org:
Bhutto’s assassination, for example, offered yet another example that Bush’s war has been at best incompetently pursued, if not misconceived from the very beginning.
Not only did Bush’s diversion of both money and troops from Afghanistan to Iraq immediately after the defeat of the Taliban permit both Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup and eventually extend their influence in the rugged tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border, but his virtually unconditional backing — including more than 10 billion dollars in mostly military aid — for the regime of General Pervez Musharraf served mainly to strengthen the Islamist parties at the expense of the secular, “moderate” forces to which his administration has given mainly rhetorical support.
When it became clear last summer that Pakistan’s Taliban was making major advances and that Musharraf’s popular base had dried up, the administration sought to forge an agreement between the military commander and the exiled Bhutto, whom it had long ignored.
THE PUNDITS ARE IRRELEVANT
The world view advanced by the Washington elites, particularly the pundit class, doesn't reflect the reality faced by most of us. The elites tell us that “free trade” as exemplified by treaties like NAFTA is just great. The rest of us see jobs being outsourced and our standard of living declining. We're told that Bush's “surge” in Iraq is working, but 2007 actually had the worst level of violence since the country was invaded. We're told that John Edwards is divisive, but John Edwards is speaking to the issues that affect most of us. The kind of world the Washington elites want is a miserable experience for most of us. This article by David Sirota is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Most Washington pundits have reached their positions by defending the system they cover as fundamentally good. Doing that, in their minds, validates their own value and worth - because if they acknowledge that the system is corrupt, it means they are admitting that their work bolstering that system is corrupt, too (which, of course, it is).
And so elite reaction to the populist uprising is swift. As respected pollsters tell us that "if Americans have ever been angrier with the state of the country, we have not witnessed it," Washington pundits tell us candidates representing that anger are doomed. These pundits desperately claim that candidates' support for majority positions will somehow "rip the nation apart," and that such candidates who take up the populist mantle are "wildly irresponsible" for doing so.
Sadly, the caucuses and primaries look like only the opening act of a more full-scale Establishment backlash against America's populist tide. A group of has-been politicians are pushing Wall Street billionaire Mike Bloomberg to run as an independent if these has-been politicians do not approve of the nominees of both parties. We are told that Bloomberg is the one who can restore "unity" and "bipartisanship" in the face of the uprising. That the populism represented in both parties' primaries right now is supported by both Republican and Democratic voters has somehow escaped these supposed crusaders for "bipartisanship."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DISASTERS EVERYWHERE
The Hippocratic Oath that physicians take advises, "First, do no harm." Politicians should have a similar standard. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will leave the world much worse off than when they assumed power. In all the vital areas that can be influenced by a presidential administration things are worse. The economy is worse, the gap between rich and poor is worse, the state of health care is worse, education is worse, housing is worse, deficits are worse, the environment is worse, and foreign policy is far, far worse. This article takes a look at Bush's "twilight year" and the dismal legacy being left behind. The article by Jim Lobe is at www.commondreams.org:
Bhutto’s assassination, for example, offered yet another example that Bush’s war has been at best incompetently pursued, if not misconceived from the very beginning.
Not only did Bush’s diversion of both money and troops from Afghanistan to Iraq immediately after the defeat of the Taliban permit both Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup and eventually extend their influence in the rugged tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border, but his virtually unconditional backing — including more than 10 billion dollars in mostly military aid — for the regime of General Pervez Musharraf served mainly to strengthen the Islamist parties at the expense of the secular, “moderate” forces to which his administration has given mainly rhetorical support.
When it became clear last summer that Pakistan’s Taliban was making major advances and that Musharraf’s popular base had dried up, the administration sought to forge an agreement between the military commander and the exiled Bhutto, whom it had long ignored.
THE PUNDITS ARE IRRELEVANT
The world view advanced by the Washington elites, particularly the pundit class, doesn't reflect the reality faced by most of us. The elites tell us that “free trade” as exemplified by treaties like NAFTA is just great. The rest of us see jobs being outsourced and our standard of living declining. We're told that Bush's “surge” in Iraq is working, but 2007 actually had the worst level of violence since the country was invaded. We're told that John Edwards is divisive, but John Edwards is speaking to the issues that affect most of us. The kind of world the Washington elites want is a miserable experience for most of us. This article by David Sirota is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Most Washington pundits have reached their positions by defending the system they cover as fundamentally good. Doing that, in their minds, validates their own value and worth - because if they acknowledge that the system is corrupt, it means they are admitting that their work bolstering that system is corrupt, too (which, of course, it is).
And so elite reaction to the populist uprising is swift. As respected pollsters tell us that "if Americans have ever been angrier with the state of the country, we have not witnessed it," Washington pundits tell us candidates representing that anger are doomed. These pundits desperately claim that candidates' support for majority positions will somehow "rip the nation apart," and that such candidates who take up the populist mantle are "wildly irresponsible" for doing so.
Sadly, the caucuses and primaries look like only the opening act of a more full-scale Establishment backlash against America's populist tide. A group of has-been politicians are pushing Wall Street billionaire Mike Bloomberg to run as an independent if these has-been politicians do not approve of the nominees of both parties. We are told that Bloomberg is the one who can restore "unity" and "bipartisanship" in the face of the uprising. That the populism represented in both parties' primaries right now is supported by both Republican and Democratic voters has somehow escaped these supposed crusaders for "bipartisanship."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)