November 28, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
Early indications are that the incoming Obama administration will not pursue war crimes charges against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. As uncomfortable as it may be, Bush and Cheney should undergo a full investigation and trial. They have deliberately and wantonly committed crimes against "terrorist" detainees. They have circumvented or outright broken U. S. law. They are not above the law. This article by Liliana Segura is at www.alternet.org:
Common consensus is that the Bush administration has been the most lawless in U.S. history. From its illegal invasion of Iraq to the corporate-assisted, warrantless wiretapping of its own constituents, the Bush White House seems never to have held a view of the law from below. And, since long before the election of Barack Obama, a number of groups and individuals have called for accountability, from a vocal network of people calling for impeachment for Bush's illegal and fraudulent invasion of Iraq, to, this summer, the bluntly labeled campaign, Send Karl Rove to Jail.
But if ever there was a stain on the fabric of American democracy that must be deserving of prosecution, it is the dark legacy of torture left by the Bush administration. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to the CIA's "secret sites," proof abounds that the U.S. government engaged in systematic torture that was approved by top government officials. Ironically, a central laboratory for this corrosion of the country's moral and legal code was the very office charged with defending the rule of law: the Department of Justice.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
November 19, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ON LIBERTARIANS
In my view the word "mandatory"is one of the ugliest and oppressive in the English language. When someone tells me something is "mandatory" it immediately raises my hackles. So I probably have a little libertarian in me. And yet, overall, I think the ideas libertarians advocate are utopian at best, destructive at worst. I agree with libertarians on social issues. I want government to butt out when it comes to what I watch, read, think, listen to, what religion I practice or don't practice, and other personal issues. But I also like things like clean and safe drinking water, safe over the counter drugs, safe food, a decent infrastructure, public libraries, a functioning air traffic control system, a system to make television and radio frequencies work, and so on. This article by Ernest Partridge is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Libertarians routinely trot out horror stories about government waste, fraud, and abuse, and measure these troublesome anecdotes alongside an unrealizable ideal of a "perfectly functioning market." However, this argument commits the fallacy of disparate comparison by comparing what the perfect market would do in theory with what imperfect governmental agencies, at their worst, have done in fact. No thoughtful liberal defender of public regulation of the environment in liberal democracies will pretend that this approach is perfect. In fact, as everyone knows, regulatory agencies are under constant assault and their public service is constantly compromised, usually by the very free market forces and private interests that are celebrated by the libertarians. But if the libertarians have a better alternative, then it must be shown to be preferable in practice, rather than in ideal theory. However, history shows that the unconstrained free market, privatization and the absence of "government interference" has given us opium in cough medicine, spoiled meat, child labor, mine disasters, black lung disease, air and water pollution, depletion of natural resources, and now the collapse of the financial markets.
"The free market," that cornerstone of libertarian theory, cannot survive without a governmental referee, for the unconstrained and unregulated "free market" contains the seeds of its own destruction. Though free market theorists are reluctant to admit it, capitalists are not fond of free markets, since open and fair competition forces them to invest in product development while they cut their prices. Monopoly and the elimination of competition is the ideal condition for the entrepreneur, and he will strive to achieve it unless restrained not by conscience but by an outside agency enforcing "anti-trust" laws. That agency, necessary for the maintenance of the free market is, of course, the "government," so despised by the libertarians. Evidence? Look to history. Then it was John D. Rockefeller, now it is Bill Gates.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ON LIBERTARIANS
In my view the word "mandatory"is one of the ugliest and oppressive in the English language. When someone tells me something is "mandatory" it immediately raises my hackles. So I probably have a little libertarian in me. And yet, overall, I think the ideas libertarians advocate are utopian at best, destructive at worst. I agree with libertarians on social issues. I want government to butt out when it comes to what I watch, read, think, listen to, what religion I practice or don't practice, and other personal issues. But I also like things like clean and safe drinking water, safe over the counter drugs, safe food, a decent infrastructure, public libraries, a functioning air traffic control system, a system to make television and radio frequencies work, and so on. This article by Ernest Partridge is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Libertarians routinely trot out horror stories about government waste, fraud, and abuse, and measure these troublesome anecdotes alongside an unrealizable ideal of a "perfectly functioning market." However, this argument commits the fallacy of disparate comparison by comparing what the perfect market would do in theory with what imperfect governmental agencies, at their worst, have done in fact. No thoughtful liberal defender of public regulation of the environment in liberal democracies will pretend that this approach is perfect. In fact, as everyone knows, regulatory agencies are under constant assault and their public service is constantly compromised, usually by the very free market forces and private interests that are celebrated by the libertarians. But if the libertarians have a better alternative, then it must be shown to be preferable in practice, rather than in ideal theory. However, history shows that the unconstrained free market, privatization and the absence of "government interference" has given us opium in cough medicine, spoiled meat, child labor, mine disasters, black lung disease, air and water pollution, depletion of natural resources, and now the collapse of the financial markets.
"The free market," that cornerstone of libertarian theory, cannot survive without a governmental referee, for the unconstrained and unregulated "free market" contains the seeds of its own destruction. Though free market theorists are reluctant to admit it, capitalists are not fond of free markets, since open and fair competition forces them to invest in product development while they cut their prices. Monopoly and the elimination of competition is the ideal condition for the entrepreneur, and he will strive to achieve it unless restrained not by conscience but by an outside agency enforcing "anti-trust" laws. That agency, necessary for the maintenance of the free market is, of course, the "government," so despised by the libertarians. Evidence? Look to history. Then it was John D. Rockefeller, now it is Bill Gates.
Monday, November 17, 2008
November 17, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GOOD RIDDANCE
After he resigned the presidency in disgrace Richard M. Nixon began a process of remaking himself into an elder statesman. I'm not sure Nixon ever succeeded. He was a vile, crooked man, and all the spin in the world couldn't change that. But we can probably expect a similar effort to rehabilitate the reputation of George W. Bush. Compared to Bush, Richard Nixon was a saint. Bush has taken arrogance and corruption and bloodlust to a whole new level. This article by Paul Waldman is at www.truthout.org:
This presidency is finally over. We can say goodbye to an administration whose misdeeds have piled so high that the size of the mountain no longer shocks us. In our lifetimes, we will see administrations of varying degrees of competence and integrity, some we'll agree with and some we won't. But we will probably never see another quite like the one now finally reaching its end, so mind-boggling a parade of incompetence and malice, dishonesty, and immorality. So at last - at long, long last - we can say goodbye.
And good riddance.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
GOOD RIDDANCE
After he resigned the presidency in disgrace Richard M. Nixon began a process of remaking himself into an elder statesman. I'm not sure Nixon ever succeeded. He was a vile, crooked man, and all the spin in the world couldn't change that. But we can probably expect a similar effort to rehabilitate the reputation of George W. Bush. Compared to Bush, Richard Nixon was a saint. Bush has taken arrogance and corruption and bloodlust to a whole new level. This article by Paul Waldman is at www.truthout.org:
This presidency is finally over. We can say goodbye to an administration whose misdeeds have piled so high that the size of the mountain no longer shocks us. In our lifetimes, we will see administrations of varying degrees of competence and integrity, some we'll agree with and some we won't. But we will probably never see another quite like the one now finally reaching its end, so mind-boggling a parade of incompetence and malice, dishonesty, and immorality. So at last - at long, long last - we can say goodbye.
And good riddance.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
November 12, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HISTORY OF TAX CUTS ISN'T PRETTY
Every election season right-wing politicians, the gasbags on talk radio, and right-wingers everywhere proclaim the virtues of tax cuts, especially for the rich. According to them, tax cuts for the rich lead to investment, jobs, and prosperity for all. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich do very well. The rest of us face financial upheaval. This article by Larry Beinhart is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Even now, in the midst of the Bush disaster, I constantly see and hear tax cuts, particularly at the top, described as "pro-growth." So I went and looked at the numbers -- tax rates, tax cuts and tax hikes -- and placed them alongside job growth, the Dow Jones, growth in the GDP and median income.
The brute facts say the opposite of the myth.
The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological idea from a scientific (or rational) one?
According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way, which would then say the theory is wrong.
On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way; you could make up some story that said your theory was still right.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HISTORY OF TAX CUTS ISN'T PRETTY
Every election season right-wing politicians, the gasbags on talk radio, and right-wingers everywhere proclaim the virtues of tax cuts, especially for the rich. According to them, tax cuts for the rich lead to investment, jobs, and prosperity for all. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich do very well. The rest of us face financial upheaval. This article by Larry Beinhart is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Even now, in the midst of the Bush disaster, I constantly see and hear tax cuts, particularly at the top, described as "pro-growth." So I went and looked at the numbers -- tax rates, tax cuts and tax hikes -- and placed them alongside job growth, the Dow Jones, growth in the GDP and median income.
The brute facts say the opposite of the myth.
The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological idea from a scientific (or rational) one?
According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way, which would then say the theory is wrong.
On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way; you could make up some story that said your theory was still right.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
November 08, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RANDOM THOUGHTS
I briefly perused the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One letter writer was worried about "socialism" from Barack Obama. It shows how effective propaganda really is. The fact is that some socialism is really pretty good for most of us. I think it's good that we have things like unemployment insurance and Social Security. I hope that national health insurance will come to pass during Obama's administration.
Another letter writer tried to find a link between Obama talking about the needs of "main street" and a fall in the stock market the next day. I would point out that the stock market has consistently fallen in the past few weeks before Barack Obama was elected president. Another stock market fall was probably due to a report of the highest unemployment figures in fourteen years. The toxic effects of the Bush administration will be with us for some time. I think Barack Obama will make a huge and positive difference, but he can't fix so much damage instantly.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RANDOM THOUGHTS
I briefly perused the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One letter writer was worried about "socialism" from Barack Obama. It shows how effective propaganda really is. The fact is that some socialism is really pretty good for most of us. I think it's good that we have things like unemployment insurance and Social Security. I hope that national health insurance will come to pass during Obama's administration.
Another letter writer tried to find a link between Obama talking about the needs of "main street" and a fall in the stock market the next day. I would point out that the stock market has consistently fallen in the past few weeks before Barack Obama was elected president. Another stock market fall was probably due to a report of the highest unemployment figures in fourteen years. The toxic effects of the Bush administration will be with us for some time. I think Barack Obama will make a huge and positive difference, but he can't fix so much damage instantly.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
November 05, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOWARD A NEW POLITICS
I was cautiously optimistic as I saw Barack Obama take a lead in the major polls. There was always that nagging feeling that the Republicans would find a way to steal yet another election in the same way they stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. But Obama had too much of a lead. Too many of us were watching this time. The Internet has added a whole new dimension to politics. Some of it, such as the hateful smearing emails you get, are reprehensible. For the most part, though, the Internet is our way to participate in a national and international forum. Barack Obama represents not only the election of the first African-American president, but the beginning of a new era. We desperately need a 21st version of the New Deal. Working class people need to be represented again. This column by Mark Weisbrot is at www.commondreams.org:
For now, though, the domestic economy will occupy center stage as the new government faces the worst recession in decades, and one that is just beginning -- the housing bubble that caused this recession is only about 60 percent deflated. The people have voted for change, including expanded health care coverage and -- as they did in 2006 -- an end to the Iraq war. How much change we will actually see will depend more than anything on how much pressure there is from below.
But there is plenty to celebrate in addition to the election of our first African-American president. Forty years is a long time for a country to be on the wrong track, and even worse for one that has so much influence on the rest of the world. We now have an opportunity to resume the economic and social progress that was considered almost inevitable a few decades ago, and to address some of the most urgent environmental problems -- most importantly climate change -- which have only recently become widely recognized. Who knows, we might even stop invading other countries and move towards becoming a law-abiding member of the international community. Progress is now at least possible, although it will still be an uphill fight. As Obama himself said in his acceptance speech, "This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOWARD A NEW POLITICS
I was cautiously optimistic as I saw Barack Obama take a lead in the major polls. There was always that nagging feeling that the Republicans would find a way to steal yet another election in the same way they stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. But Obama had too much of a lead. Too many of us were watching this time. The Internet has added a whole new dimension to politics. Some of it, such as the hateful smearing emails you get, are reprehensible. For the most part, though, the Internet is our way to participate in a national and international forum. Barack Obama represents not only the election of the first African-American president, but the beginning of a new era. We desperately need a 21st version of the New Deal. Working class people need to be represented again. This column by Mark Weisbrot is at www.commondreams.org:
For now, though, the domestic economy will occupy center stage as the new government faces the worst recession in decades, and one that is just beginning -- the housing bubble that caused this recession is only about 60 percent deflated. The people have voted for change, including expanded health care coverage and -- as they did in 2006 -- an end to the Iraq war. How much change we will actually see will depend more than anything on how much pressure there is from below.
But there is plenty to celebrate in addition to the election of our first African-American president. Forty years is a long time for a country to be on the wrong track, and even worse for one that has so much influence on the rest of the world. We now have an opportunity to resume the economic and social progress that was considered almost inevitable a few decades ago, and to address some of the most urgent environmental problems -- most importantly climate change -- which have only recently become widely recognized. Who knows, we might even stop invading other countries and move towards becoming a law-abiding member of the international community. Progress is now at least possible, although it will still be an uphill fight. As Obama himself said in his acceptance speech, "This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)