June 09, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE PROMISE
Just before he was murdered, Martin Luther King Jr. said he had been to the mountain top and had seen the other side. We have had glimpses of the other side. We had a glimpse during the New Deal when FDR's reforms made ours a more just society. We had another glimpse during the New Frontier and Great Society when there was an effort to reduce poverty and to extend a peaceful hand to the rest of the world. Both the New Deal and the Great Society were ultimately thwarted by wars. Now, after seeing how bad things truly are under conservatism, we stand poised once again to create a more just and democratic society. To illustrate the contrast, consider the contempt right-wing pundits show for the majority of us. Rush Limbaugh claims it is the top 5% who "pull the wagon" and the rest of us hop in the wagon for the ride. Columnists like Cal Thomas and George Will slobber all over themselves in glorifying the rich. This article by Brent Budowsky is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Do the math: We are on the right side and Republicans are on the wrong side of global warming, where 80 percent of Americans want change. Republicans are in bed with oil companies, who make record profits while they rip off consumers and profit from wars, while homeless vets go hungry and disabled vets are often neglected.
On immigration the Republican Party is being eaten alive from within, torn in half, trapped in their politics of fear, while Hispanics are moving to Democrats in major numbers.
Independents are aligning with Democrats in overwhelming numbers, and this will continue so long as Democrats act like Democrats.
Support the vets — 25 million American vets with a 75 percent voter turnout. Add their families and the number rises above 50 million. Democrats can reclaim our heritage of FDR and JFK as the true party of troops, vets and military families.
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
May 09, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH DOING WHAT AL-QAEDA WANTS
Prolonging the occupation of Iraq is playing right into al-Qaeda's hands. Our military is tied down there and will have limited ability to respond to a crisis anywhere else. People in our military are getting killed and maimed. Our treasury is being bled dry. Bush tries to claim that a withdrawal from Iraq is what the enemy wants. But internal communications from al-Qaeda have shown great concern about a U. S. pullout. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
But one could argue that it is Bush’s open-ended war strategy that is playing into al-Qaeda’s hands.
In past articles at Consortiumnews.com, we have noted that Bush’s “listen to words of the enemy” argument was flawed because al-Qaeda’s public statements, which Bush would cite, often were at odds with its internal communications, which presumably reflected the group’s real thinking.
For instance, intercepted communiqués dating from the last half of 2005 revealed that al-Qaeda feared that a prompt U.S. military withdrawal would lead to the collapse of its operations in Iraq and that “prolonging the war is in our interest.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]
U.S. intelligence analysts also were keyed in to al-Qaeda’s use of reverse psychology, for instance, when Osama bin Laden released a videotape on the Friday before Election 2004 denouncing Bush and thus giving the President a boost in the final days of the campaign.
Privately, CIA analysts concluded that bin Laden wanted Bush to get a second term so his blunderbuss “war on terror” could continue for another four years and thus help al-Qaeda recruit more young terrorists.
CONSERVATISM MEANS LESS FREEDOM
The mantra of right-wingers has been to "get the government off our backs." They claim they want people to have choices (except in little things like abortion, I guess). What they really want is a predatory marketplace where big business can do whatever it wants, pay lousy wages, offer no benefits, outsource jobs, destroy the environment, offer shoddy products that you can't even sue them over, and reduce us to penury. This article by Beth Shulman is at www.commondreams.org:
Conservatism historically has seen government as a problem to overcome, an albatross. President Reagan stated it succinctly when he said, “we need to get government off our backs.” Conservatives usually justify this negative view of government in the name of freedom. They conflate freedom with unregulated markets, anti-unionism, low taxes and a rabid individualism. Without so-called government interference, people would be free to make their own choices. But what has this restricted view of government and the notion of freedom it embraces meant for America’s families today? In one word—disaster.The “you are on your own” notion of government and freedom has meant that American families must live with stagnant wages at a time of high profits and productivity without a way to get ahead no matter how hard they try. It has meant health insecurity for workers and their families as fewer and fewer jobs provide health care coverage. It has meant that workers face their older years without the means they counted on to retire, as corporations have slashed traditional pension plans. And it has meant that half of Americans don’t have the fundamental right to take a day off from work when they are sick without losing a job or a paycheck.
It has meant parents having to forgo a child’s high school or college graduation or a PTA meeting because twenty percent of America’s workers do not have any vacation or personal days. It has meant parents tag teaming their shifts to provide their children supervision leading to increased divorce rates because they can’t afford child care. It has meant families who are more stressed out as jobs become more and more insecure. And it has meant more families just struggling to get by with one out of every three workers making less than what it takes to have basic self-sufficiency. All this has been dumped on the already sagging shoulders of working families while government has stood on the sidelines.
And as parents look to provide a better future for their children, it has meant coming up short. Today, it is only the wealthy who have the resources to provide their children the tools required to move up in our society—quality early education, good public schools and a college education. The rest of America’s children just have to do without.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH DOING WHAT AL-QAEDA WANTS
Prolonging the occupation of Iraq is playing right into al-Qaeda's hands. Our military is tied down there and will have limited ability to respond to a crisis anywhere else. People in our military are getting killed and maimed. Our treasury is being bled dry. Bush tries to claim that a withdrawal from Iraq is what the enemy wants. But internal communications from al-Qaeda have shown great concern about a U. S. pullout. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
But one could argue that it is Bush’s open-ended war strategy that is playing into al-Qaeda’s hands.
In past articles at Consortiumnews.com, we have noted that Bush’s “listen to words of the enemy” argument was flawed because al-Qaeda’s public statements, which Bush would cite, often were at odds with its internal communications, which presumably reflected the group’s real thinking.
For instance, intercepted communiqués dating from the last half of 2005 revealed that al-Qaeda feared that a prompt U.S. military withdrawal would lead to the collapse of its operations in Iraq and that “prolonging the war is in our interest.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]
U.S. intelligence analysts also were keyed in to al-Qaeda’s use of reverse psychology, for instance, when Osama bin Laden released a videotape on the Friday before Election 2004 denouncing Bush and thus giving the President a boost in the final days of the campaign.
Privately, CIA analysts concluded that bin Laden wanted Bush to get a second term so his blunderbuss “war on terror” could continue for another four years and thus help al-Qaeda recruit more young terrorists.
CONSERVATISM MEANS LESS FREEDOM
The mantra of right-wingers has been to "get the government off our backs." They claim they want people to have choices (except in little things like abortion, I guess). What they really want is a predatory marketplace where big business can do whatever it wants, pay lousy wages, offer no benefits, outsource jobs, destroy the environment, offer shoddy products that you can't even sue them over, and reduce us to penury. This article by Beth Shulman is at www.commondreams.org:
Conservatism historically has seen government as a problem to overcome, an albatross. President Reagan stated it succinctly when he said, “we need to get government off our backs.” Conservatives usually justify this negative view of government in the name of freedom. They conflate freedom with unregulated markets, anti-unionism, low taxes and a rabid individualism. Without so-called government interference, people would be free to make their own choices. But what has this restricted view of government and the notion of freedom it embraces meant for America’s families today? In one word—disaster.The “you are on your own” notion of government and freedom has meant that American families must live with stagnant wages at a time of high profits and productivity without a way to get ahead no matter how hard they try. It has meant health insecurity for workers and their families as fewer and fewer jobs provide health care coverage. It has meant that workers face their older years without the means they counted on to retire, as corporations have slashed traditional pension plans. And it has meant that half of Americans don’t have the fundamental right to take a day off from work when they are sick without losing a job or a paycheck.
It has meant parents having to forgo a child’s high school or college graduation or a PTA meeting because twenty percent of America’s workers do not have any vacation or personal days. It has meant parents tag teaming their shifts to provide their children supervision leading to increased divorce rates because they can’t afford child care. It has meant families who are more stressed out as jobs become more and more insecure. And it has meant more families just struggling to get by with one out of every three workers making less than what it takes to have basic self-sufficiency. All this has been dumped on the already sagging shoulders of working families while government has stood on the sidelines.
And as parents look to provide a better future for their children, it has meant coming up short. Today, it is only the wealthy who have the resources to provide their children the tools required to move up in our society—quality early education, good public schools and a college education. The rest of America’s children just have to do without.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
March 25, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL
This is a long and interesting article about how happiness and material possessions don't necessarily go together. Psychologist Abraham Maslow developed ideas about the "hierarchy of needs." Once your essential material needs are met, according to his theory, then you can become "self-actualizing." Maybe it's time we concentrate on meeting the essential needs of people, which includes education, health care, decent housing, and social communities. It's time to stop emphasizing the big houses and big cars and other grandiose symbols of material success. As the planet's resources have become more stressed, it makes sense. This article by Bill McKibben is at www.alternet.org:
For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both. That's why the centuries since Adam Smith launched modern economics with his book The Wealth of Nations have been so single-mindedly devoted to the dogged pursuit of maximum economic production.
Smith's core ideas -- that individuals pursuing their own interests in a market society end up making each other richer; and that increasing efficiency, usually by increasing scale, is the key to increasing wealth --have indisputably worked. They've produced more More than he could ever have imagined. They've built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith's ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.
But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown a few trees over to make her nest. And that changes everything. Now, with the stone of your life or your society gripped in your hand, you have to choose. It's More or Better.
CONSERVATISM IS TOO EXPENSIVE
Even if you can put away such exemplary traits as compassion and decency, you have to reject conservatism if you're a practical person. Conservatism is just too expensive. Jane Smiley makes some interesting points in this article about the glaring costs of conservatism. Carpet bombing is a lot more expensive than using good intelligence to find our enemies. Polluting the environment creates exponentially greater costs in the future. The article is at www.alternet.org:
What costs more -- a vast middle class who can support themselves and their towns and cities and schools and children and elderly relatives, or a vast class of working poor who can barely support themselves and certainly cannot take care of failing schools, deteriorating housing stock, surging crime, and chaos proliferating all around them? Just because the conservatives don't want to pay for something doesn't mean costs are not incurred; they are simply put off for another day, when they will be geometrically higher.
The root problem of conservatism is that it is tribal -- conservatives cannot or will not believe in such basic concepts as epidemiology, ecology, or even Keynesian economics (not to mention brotherly love). But even though conservatives have been fighting interconnectedness forever, it continues to exist (that "reality has a liberal bias" sort of thing). Regulations and benefits like healthcare and diplomacy exist not out of soft-hearted liberal guilt, but because taking care of matters before they get out of hand is cheaper, while hiding your head in the sand, clinging to us-and-them beliefs, and arming yourselves to the teeth is ever more expensive. In Bleak House, Charles Dickens pointed out to a ruling class that was reluctant to assume the expenses of public sanitation that smallpox could not be excluded from the houses of the rich simply because the rich disdained the poor. That was a hundred and fifty years ago, and we are still having to point the same thing out today. You don't have to recognize the connection (as in smallpox, as in global warming) in order for it to be there.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL
This is a long and interesting article about how happiness and material possessions don't necessarily go together. Psychologist Abraham Maslow developed ideas about the "hierarchy of needs." Once your essential material needs are met, according to his theory, then you can become "self-actualizing." Maybe it's time we concentrate on meeting the essential needs of people, which includes education, health care, decent housing, and social communities. It's time to stop emphasizing the big houses and big cars and other grandiose symbols of material success. As the planet's resources have become more stressed, it makes sense. This article by Bill McKibben is at www.alternet.org:
For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both. That's why the centuries since Adam Smith launched modern economics with his book The Wealth of Nations have been so single-mindedly devoted to the dogged pursuit of maximum economic production.
Smith's core ideas -- that individuals pursuing their own interests in a market society end up making each other richer; and that increasing efficiency, usually by increasing scale, is the key to increasing wealth --have indisputably worked. They've produced more More than he could ever have imagined. They've built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith's ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.
But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown a few trees over to make her nest. And that changes everything. Now, with the stone of your life or your society gripped in your hand, you have to choose. It's More or Better.
CONSERVATISM IS TOO EXPENSIVE
Even if you can put away such exemplary traits as compassion and decency, you have to reject conservatism if you're a practical person. Conservatism is just too expensive. Jane Smiley makes some interesting points in this article about the glaring costs of conservatism. Carpet bombing is a lot more expensive than using good intelligence to find our enemies. Polluting the environment creates exponentially greater costs in the future. The article is at www.alternet.org:
What costs more -- a vast middle class who can support themselves and their towns and cities and schools and children and elderly relatives, or a vast class of working poor who can barely support themselves and certainly cannot take care of failing schools, deteriorating housing stock, surging crime, and chaos proliferating all around them? Just because the conservatives don't want to pay for something doesn't mean costs are not incurred; they are simply put off for another day, when they will be geometrically higher.
The root problem of conservatism is that it is tribal -- conservatives cannot or will not believe in such basic concepts as epidemiology, ecology, or even Keynesian economics (not to mention brotherly love). But even though conservatives have been fighting interconnectedness forever, it continues to exist (that "reality has a liberal bias" sort of thing). Regulations and benefits like healthcare and diplomacy exist not out of soft-hearted liberal guilt, but because taking care of matters before they get out of hand is cheaper, while hiding your head in the sand, clinging to us-and-them beliefs, and arming yourselves to the teeth is ever more expensive. In Bleak House, Charles Dickens pointed out to a ruling class that was reluctant to assume the expenses of public sanitation that smallpox could not be excluded from the houses of the rich simply because the rich disdained the poor. That was a hundred and fifty years ago, and we are still having to point the same thing out today. You don't have to recognize the connection (as in smallpox, as in global warming) in order for it to be there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)