HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
THE WEALTHY HAVE WAGED CLASS WARFARE ON US
Now that President Obama has released his first budget and the budget contains provisions for raising taxes on the rich we will hear the caterwauling from the right about "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth." But for decades the right-wing policies pursued by our government have effectively been transferring the wealth to the richest people in this country and systematically destroying the working and middle class. We have had policies that ship jobs to other countries. The minimum wage has barely budged in comparison to the explosion in CEO salaries and perks. There has been an active effort to destroy the union movement. The rich have received massive tax breaks that in many cases mean their effective rate of taxation is lower than that of working people. I have no sympathy for these creeps. This article by Jamison Foser is at mediamatters.org:
But the real problem with Cummings' article -- and with the rest of the week's news reports about "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" -- is that they frame Obama's proposals in such negative terms. It's hard to think of a single example of tax or spending policy that doesn't in some way "redistribute wealth." Some redistribute wealth upward, some redistribute wealth downward. But the media only seem to break out the "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" pejorative when the wealth in question is heading to those who are not already wealthy.
(At this point, it should be noted that big-name political reporters earn considerably more money than most of the people who read and watch their reports. According to Sean Quinn at FiveThirtyEight.com, one reporter asked after Gibbs' briefing yesterday: "Did you notice all the questions about taxes came from reporters making over $250,000 a year, especially the TV guys?")
THE FREAKS OF THE FAR RIGHT
Sometimes when you look at the denizens of the Far Right in this country you have to wonder why they aren't in a circus sideshow somewhere next to the three-headed chicken. Their idea of "Americanism" is for a few people to have everything and everyone else to have nothing. They claim that God is on their side. They talk about "freedom" while doing everything in their power to suppress freedom. Smoke a joint and go to prison, but engineer a massive Ponzi scheme and you're paying homage to the "free market." This article by Bob Cesca is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
After nearly three decades of Reaganomics in which the wealthiest two percent have grown exponentially wealthier while middle class wages have remained stagnant, a growing faction of super rich Americans is seriously pissed off -- and their Wingnut Revolution is upon us.
Sure, the interests and influence of the wealthiest two percent make them more responsible than most for the free market policies that created this current economic crisis. But if there's one thing we've learned about those responsible for this recession, it's that the concept of accountability is about as foreign as their live-in au pairs. Instead, they're trying to pin this on Barney Frank and a legion of "losers" (read that: working class minorities) even though Ben Bernanke himself has debunked this myth.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
THE MISERIES OF JURY DUTY
Jury duty has become a plague in Fresno County. I've gotten four summons in just eight years. The last three times I got excused without having to report to the courthouse. Not this time, though.
Among the things I hate is the downtown location of the courthouse. Parking can be a nightmare. The court has free parking across from the baseball park, but if you're unfamiliar with downtown it can be a problem finding the parking lot.
Then you ride a packed shuttle to the courthouse and go into the Jury Assembly Room. You turn in one of the forms they sent you with the summons and they call roll. Then they come back with the dreaded announcement that you've been assigned to a courtroom.
You go through a metal detector. You have to empty your pockets and even take off your belt and watch. If the machine beeps, you have to go back through the process.
The elevators are packed and slower than a garden snail.
You go into the courtroom, which has absolutely no windows, and they call roll again.
The judge comes in and reads the charges against the accused. The the first eighteen names are called for people to report to jury box. They are handed a green sheet questionnaire.
The judge asks if the prospective jurors know the attorneys, witnesses, or the defendant. He asks if there are any religious or philosophical reasons someone couldn't serve on a jury. He asks about hardship jury duty would impose.
Then the defense attorney and the prosecutor start asking questions of the prospective jurors. They are looking for biases that might make an impartial verdict impossible. After that, they have challenges to people they think would be biased and they excuse those people.
You go through this process repeatedly until a jury and six alternate jurors get selected.
I would be in favor of a professional jury system. Everything else about the criminal and civil justice system is done by professionals. Judges are professionals, attorneys are professionals, and the law enforcement personnel are professionals. The biggest issue would be keeping professional jurors from becoming too chummy with judges and attorneys and becoming biased. But anyone who thinks the current system isn't already stacked against poor defendants is kidding himself.
I wrote our esteemed governor about my issues with coercive jury duty months ago and never got a reply. I also left a phone message and never got a reply, which shows what politicians think of ordinary constituents. We're just there to provide bodies to this process so they can create the illusion that justice is being served.
THE MISERIES OF JURY DUTY
Jury duty has become a plague in Fresno County. I've gotten four summons in just eight years. The last three times I got excused without having to report to the courthouse. Not this time, though.
Among the things I hate is the downtown location of the courthouse. Parking can be a nightmare. The court has free parking across from the baseball park, but if you're unfamiliar with downtown it can be a problem finding the parking lot.
Then you ride a packed shuttle to the courthouse and go into the Jury Assembly Room. You turn in one of the forms they sent you with the summons and they call roll. Then they come back with the dreaded announcement that you've been assigned to a courtroom.
You go through a metal detector. You have to empty your pockets and even take off your belt and watch. If the machine beeps, you have to go back through the process.
The elevators are packed and slower than a garden snail.
You go into the courtroom, which has absolutely no windows, and they call roll again.
The judge comes in and reads the charges against the accused. The the first eighteen names are called for people to report to jury box. They are handed a green sheet questionnaire.
The judge asks if the prospective jurors know the attorneys, witnesses, or the defendant. He asks if there are any religious or philosophical reasons someone couldn't serve on a jury. He asks about hardship jury duty would impose.
Then the defense attorney and the prosecutor start asking questions of the prospective jurors. They are looking for biases that might make an impartial verdict impossible. After that, they have challenges to people they think would be biased and they excuse those people.
You go through this process repeatedly until a jury and six alternate jurors get selected.
I would be in favor of a professional jury system. Everything else about the criminal and civil justice system is done by professionals. Judges are professionals, attorneys are professionals, and the law enforcement personnel are professionals. The biggest issue would be keeping professional jurors from becoming too chummy with judges and attorneys and becoming biased. But anyone who thinks the current system isn't already stacked against poor defendants is kidding himself.
I wrote our esteemed governor about my issues with coercive jury duty months ago and never got a reply. I also left a phone message and never got a reply, which shows what politicians think of ordinary constituents. We're just there to provide bodies to this process so they can create the illusion that justice is being served.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
LIMBAUGH, REPUBLICAN DEMAGOGUE
People who faithfully listen to Rush Limbaugh and spout his talking points are like mindless drones. They proudly call themselves "Ditto Heads," announcing to the world that they don't think for themselves. The irony is that the policies pushed by Limbaugh are hurtful to his devout followers. Now Limbaugh has arrogated to himself the position of leading the Republican party. Let's hope so. Most people don't care for Limbaugh and the extremism he represents. If he is the face of the Republican party, it means the even further demise of the GOP and I'm all in favor of that. This article by Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak is at www.latimes.com:
Limbaugh has plenty of critics, not all of them liberal or Democrats. Some Republicans worry that the 58-year-old AM radio icon, highly effective at rallying disenchanted conservatives, may be turning off the less ideological voters whom Republicans need if they hope to again become a majority party.
"The question is: Are we going to have an all-white-man litmus test under the Republican Party? Or is there room for diverse opinion on environmental issues, on the issue of right to life, the issue of taxes and spending?" said Rich Bond, a GOP strategist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "There must be room for dissent in the Republican Party. It must be sincere. It must have comity."
To some, Limbaugh crossed a line when he recently rooted for Obama's downfall. Asked along with other prominent political types to write 400 words on his hopes for the president, Limbaugh said: "I don't need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails."
LIMBAUGH, REPUBLICAN DEMAGOGUE
People who faithfully listen to Rush Limbaugh and spout his talking points are like mindless drones. They proudly call themselves "Ditto Heads," announcing to the world that they don't think for themselves. The irony is that the policies pushed by Limbaugh are hurtful to his devout followers. Now Limbaugh has arrogated to himself the position of leading the Republican party. Let's hope so. Most people don't care for Limbaugh and the extremism he represents. If he is the face of the Republican party, it means the even further demise of the GOP and I'm all in favor of that. This article by Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak is at www.latimes.com:
Limbaugh has plenty of critics, not all of them liberal or Democrats. Some Republicans worry that the 58-year-old AM radio icon, highly effective at rallying disenchanted conservatives, may be turning off the less ideological voters whom Republicans need if they hope to again become a majority party.
"The question is: Are we going to have an all-white-man litmus test under the Republican Party? Or is there room for diverse opinion on environmental issues, on the issue of right to life, the issue of taxes and spending?" said Rich Bond, a GOP strategist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "There must be room for dissent in the Republican Party. It must be sincere. It must have comity."
To some, Limbaugh crossed a line when he recently rooted for Obama's downfall. Asked along with other prominent political types to write 400 words on his hopes for the president, Limbaugh said: "I don't need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails."
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
REPUBLICANS: THE TAX CUT IS MY SHEPHERD
Republicans, whose policies created the economic crisis we face now, are obstructing passage of a stimulus package because they want tax cuts for their fat cat friends. It's the same stuff that got us into this hole. It's almost like a religion with these clowns. You can almost see them on bended knee, looking heavenward, and reconstructing the 23rd Psalm. "The tax cut is my shepherd and I shall not want." Joe Conason talks about the reality of the stimulus package vs. the myths propagated by self-serving Republicans, who put fat cats before country. This commentary is at www.observer.com:
Another persistent myth denigrates spending on food stamps, unemployment insurance, tuition aid and similar programs as “welfare” that doesn’t promote growth. According to this argument, assistance to the poor doesn’t qualify as “stimulus” because it doesn’t create public assets such as roads or bridges. But the real purpose of fiscal stimulus is to boost demand in the economy and prevent the bottom from dropping out under prices for goods and services—in short, to forestall a deflationary spiral. Giving money to families that will purchase things immediately is the best kind of boost, as both Moody’s and the Congressional Budget Office have noted in recent studies.
It is true that we need to make real investments in transportation, energy, education and technology for the future—and that our future fiscal difficulties will be eased if we make those investments now. Yet the most immediate need is to promote demand, which will restore confidence and encourage investment.
What we ought to learn from this episode is that extreme inequality reduces national economic stability. The falling wages of working families forced them to rely too much on credit to maintain and improve their standards of living. Restoring the American dream means putting a floor under family incomes and reducing the gap between the richest and poorest, not only for the sake of simple justice but because that is the most reliable economic policy for the nation as a whole.
REALITY: MOST OF US WON'T GET RICH
Back in the days of aristocrats and peasants the peasants knew they wouldn't get rich, so I doubt they identified much with the people in the big castles. In the United States we get brainwashed into thinking that we, too, could be rich under the right circumstances. That's a part of the reason people don't rise up against the massive inequality in this country. This discussion by John Buell is at www.commondreams.org:
During the campaign, Democrats argued that working and middle-class citizens would be better off under their tax proposals. This debate is important, but it obscures one quintessentially American trait. More workers in the U.S. than in other nations are convinced they are going to become rich. They identify with the interests and ideas of the rich. It is important to reduce taxes on the working class. Nonetheless, fair taxation and economic justice are less likely as long as many believe they are only a little more hard work - or one lottery ticket - away from wealth.
Recent studies show that rags to riches stories, so widely publicized here, are actually less common than in much-reviled and more egalitarian European social democracies. Nonetheless, statistical attacks on mythology often fail to address the gut level concerns that feed it. Reformers must counter Horatio Alger tales of fortune tapping the hardworking for great wealth. Many of the largest modern fortunes are not the result of work or clever invention but insider deals that harm ordinary workers and even investors.
Hank Paulson's bailout was administered by Wall Street insiders, who showered billions of dollars on a narrow cadre of investment bankers. These banks in turn plot more mergers even as they abstain from lending to productive enterprises. The income investment bankers make from marketing exotic derivatives that destabilize the world economy is then taxed at about half the rate of plumbers' incomes. The plumber trying to start a business is paying more taxes so that investment bankers can pay less.
REPUBLICANS: THE TAX CUT IS MY SHEPHERD
Republicans, whose policies created the economic crisis we face now, are obstructing passage of a stimulus package because they want tax cuts for their fat cat friends. It's the same stuff that got us into this hole. It's almost like a religion with these clowns. You can almost see them on bended knee, looking heavenward, and reconstructing the 23rd Psalm. "The tax cut is my shepherd and I shall not want." Joe Conason talks about the reality of the stimulus package vs. the myths propagated by self-serving Republicans, who put fat cats before country. This commentary is at www.observer.com:
Another persistent myth denigrates spending on food stamps, unemployment insurance, tuition aid and similar programs as “welfare” that doesn’t promote growth. According to this argument, assistance to the poor doesn’t qualify as “stimulus” because it doesn’t create public assets such as roads or bridges. But the real purpose of fiscal stimulus is to boost demand in the economy and prevent the bottom from dropping out under prices for goods and services—in short, to forestall a deflationary spiral. Giving money to families that will purchase things immediately is the best kind of boost, as both Moody’s and the Congressional Budget Office have noted in recent studies.
It is true that we need to make real investments in transportation, energy, education and technology for the future—and that our future fiscal difficulties will be eased if we make those investments now. Yet the most immediate need is to promote demand, which will restore confidence and encourage investment.
What we ought to learn from this episode is that extreme inequality reduces national economic stability. The falling wages of working families forced them to rely too much on credit to maintain and improve their standards of living. Restoring the American dream means putting a floor under family incomes and reducing the gap between the richest and poorest, not only for the sake of simple justice but because that is the most reliable economic policy for the nation as a whole.
REALITY: MOST OF US WON'T GET RICH
Back in the days of aristocrats and peasants the peasants knew they wouldn't get rich, so I doubt they identified much with the people in the big castles. In the United States we get brainwashed into thinking that we, too, could be rich under the right circumstances. That's a part of the reason people don't rise up against the massive inequality in this country. This discussion by John Buell is at www.commondreams.org:
During the campaign, Democrats argued that working and middle-class citizens would be better off under their tax proposals. This debate is important, but it obscures one quintessentially American trait. More workers in the U.S. than in other nations are convinced they are going to become rich. They identify with the interests and ideas of the rich. It is important to reduce taxes on the working class. Nonetheless, fair taxation and economic justice are less likely as long as many believe they are only a little more hard work - or one lottery ticket - away from wealth.
Recent studies show that rags to riches stories, so widely publicized here, are actually less common than in much-reviled and more egalitarian European social democracies. Nonetheless, statistical attacks on mythology often fail to address the gut level concerns that feed it. Reformers must counter Horatio Alger tales of fortune tapping the hardworking for great wealth. Many of the largest modern fortunes are not the result of work or clever invention but insider deals that harm ordinary workers and even investors.
Hank Paulson's bailout was administered by Wall Street insiders, who showered billions of dollars on a narrow cadre of investment bankers. These banks in turn plot more mergers even as they abstain from lending to productive enterprises. The income investment bankers make from marketing exotic derivatives that destabilize the world economy is then taxed at about half the rate of plumbers' incomes. The plumber trying to start a business is paying more taxes so that investment bankers can pay less.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
GOP: GREED ON STEROIDS
I think of what Joseph Welch said to red-baiter Senator Joseph McCarthy: "Have you, Sir, at long last no sense of shame?" Republican policies have created the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression (which was also caused by Republican policies) and they want to continue more of the same. If the word chutzpah ever applied to anyone, it's to this gang of thieves. Bob Herbert writes about it in this column at www.nytimes.com:
The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.
A stark example of this unholy collaboration between the G.O.P. and the very wealthy was on display in the pages of this newspaper on Jan. 18. The Times’s Mike McIntire wrote an article about the first wave of federal bailout money for the financial industry, which was handed over by the Bush administration with hardly any strings attached. (Congress, under the control of the Democrats, should never have allowed this to happen, but the Democrats are as committed to fecklessness as the Republicans are to tax cuts.)
GOP: GREED ON STEROIDS
I think of what Joseph Welch said to red-baiter Senator Joseph McCarthy: "Have you, Sir, at long last no sense of shame?" Republican policies have created the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression (which was also caused by Republican policies) and they want to continue more of the same. If the word chutzpah ever applied to anyone, it's to this gang of thieves. Bob Herbert writes about it in this column at www.nytimes.com:
The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.
A stark example of this unholy collaboration between the G.O.P. and the very wealthy was on display in the pages of this newspaper on Jan. 18. The Times’s Mike McIntire wrote an article about the first wave of federal bailout money for the financial industry, which was handed over by the Bush administration with hardly any strings attached. (Congress, under the control of the Democrats, should never have allowed this to happen, but the Democrats are as committed to fecklessness as the Republicans are to tax cuts.)
Monday, January 26, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
THE SAME OLD STORY WITH THE REPUBLICANS
Republican leaders in Congress don't like President Obama's stimulus package because it provides for spending and not for tax cuts. We have to keep in mind that when Republicans talk about tax cuts they're not for you and me. They're for their fat cat friends. History proves that spending generates far more jobs and stimulates the economy more than tax cuts. What the Republicans are really afraid of is a successful Obama administration because that would send them into the wilderness where they belong for years and years. This commentary by Paul Krugman is at www.nytimes.com:
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.
Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.
THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH
In essence, what Ronald Reagan and proponents of "supply side economics" have preached is a free lunch. You can cut taxes and spend and the road will lead us to the promised land. Supply side economics says that when you cut taxes for rich people they will invest the money they saved in taxes and create jobs and prosperity for all. What we've seen through the Reagan and two Bush administrations is massive deficits, a huge gap in inequality, rising poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and inadequate government services. This commentary by Thom Hartmann is at www.commondreams.org:
George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.
And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
THE SAME OLD STORY WITH THE REPUBLICANS
Republican leaders in Congress don't like President Obama's stimulus package because it provides for spending and not for tax cuts. We have to keep in mind that when Republicans talk about tax cuts they're not for you and me. They're for their fat cat friends. History proves that spending generates far more jobs and stimulates the economy more than tax cuts. What the Republicans are really afraid of is a successful Obama administration because that would send them into the wilderness where they belong for years and years. This commentary by Paul Krugman is at www.nytimes.com:
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.
Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.
THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH
In essence, what Ronald Reagan and proponents of "supply side economics" have preached is a free lunch. You can cut taxes and spend and the road will lead us to the promised land. Supply side economics says that when you cut taxes for rich people they will invest the money they saved in taxes and create jobs and prosperity for all. What we've seen through the Reagan and two Bush administrations is massive deficits, a huge gap in inequality, rising poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and inadequate government services. This commentary by Thom Hartmann is at www.commondreams.org:
George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.
And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
Sunday, January 25, 2009
January 25, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
HERE IN WINGNUT COUNTRY
I've come to the conclusion that The Fresno Bee should change its name to The Wingnut Daily from the right-wing rants in the Letters to the Editor section.
In the past week or so I've seen letters complaining about President Obama's inauguration being too expensive. It was actually comparable to the cost of George W. Bush's inauguration.
I saw one nut going all the way back to the New Deal. He was outraged that "liberals" wanted Gitmo closed, but didn't object to the detention of Japanese-Americans in the 1940's. I wasn't alive back then, which precludes any protest about the detention back then. I think that detention was wrong, one of the stains from that era, but the torture of prisoners at Gitmo is even worse.
One guy, typically smug, said he wasn't particularly bothered at the idea the government might have spied on him. If you really believe in the Constitution, and if you realize the far-reaching implications of the government illegally spying, you should be bothered.
Today we have a guy talking about the "godly principles" of the founders. Godly principles like slavery, subjugation of women, genocide of Native Americans, and protecting property owners above all. There are things I admire about the founders, but their writings show they didn't believe in the fundamentalist god right-wingers espouse.
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
HERE IN WINGNUT COUNTRY
I've come to the conclusion that The Fresno Bee should change its name to The Wingnut Daily from the right-wing rants in the Letters to the Editor section.
In the past week or so I've seen letters complaining about President Obama's inauguration being too expensive. It was actually comparable to the cost of George W. Bush's inauguration.
I saw one nut going all the way back to the New Deal. He was outraged that "liberals" wanted Gitmo closed, but didn't object to the detention of Japanese-Americans in the 1940's. I wasn't alive back then, which precludes any protest about the detention back then. I think that detention was wrong, one of the stains from that era, but the torture of prisoners at Gitmo is even worse.
One guy, typically smug, said he wasn't particularly bothered at the idea the government might have spied on him. If you really believe in the Constitution, and if you realize the far-reaching implications of the government illegally spying, you should be bothered.
Today we have a guy talking about the "godly principles" of the founders. Godly principles like slavery, subjugation of women, genocide of Native Americans, and protecting property owners above all. There are things I admire about the founders, but their writings show they didn't believe in the fundamentalist god right-wingers espouse.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
January 21, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
Congratulations to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. I like some of what I've seen already. Rescinding Bush's global gag order, suspending some of Bush's "midnight regulations," and reviewing the situation in Gitmo are a good start. I hope that the Obama administration will look at full investigations of the crimes committed by the Bush administration and hold all the responsible parties accountable. We need to look to the future, but we can not ignore the crimes of the past.
THE REAL STORY OF PREDATORY CAPITALISM
Free market savants link capitalism and "freedom" in one sentence. It's interesting to note, though, how repressive capitalism has been and continues to be here and around the world. As this author points out, many capitalist countries are by no means free. The commentary by Michael Parenti is at www.commondreams.org:
The corporate capitalists no more encourage prosperity than do they propagate democracy. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is neither prosperous nor particularly democratic. One need only think of capitalist Nigeria, capitalist Indonesia, capitalist Thailand, capitalist Haiti, capitalist Colombia, capitalist Pakistan, capitalist South Africa, capitalist Latvia, and various other members of the Free World--more accurately, the Free Market World.
A prosperous, politically literate populace with high expectations about its standard of living and a keen sense of entitlement, pushing for continually better social conditions, is not the plutocracy's notion of an ideal workforce and a properly pliant polity. Corporate investors prefer poor populations. The poorer you are, the harder you will work-for less. The poorer you are, the less equipped you are to defend yourself against the abuses of wealth.
In the corporate world of "free-trade," the number of billionaires is increasing faster than ever while the number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world's population. Poverty spreads as wealth accumulates.
Consider the United States. In the last eight years alone, while vast fortunes accrued at record rates, an additional six million Americans sank below the poverty level; median family income declined by over $2,000; consumer debt more than doubled; over seven million Americans lost their health insurance, and more than four million lost their pensions; meanwhile homelessness increased and housing foreclosures reached pandemic levels.
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
Congratulations to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. I like some of what I've seen already. Rescinding Bush's global gag order, suspending some of Bush's "midnight regulations," and reviewing the situation in Gitmo are a good start. I hope that the Obama administration will look at full investigations of the crimes committed by the Bush administration and hold all the responsible parties accountable. We need to look to the future, but we can not ignore the crimes of the past.
THE REAL STORY OF PREDATORY CAPITALISM
Free market savants link capitalism and "freedom" in one sentence. It's interesting to note, though, how repressive capitalism has been and continues to be here and around the world. As this author points out, many capitalist countries are by no means free. The commentary by Michael Parenti is at www.commondreams.org:
The corporate capitalists no more encourage prosperity than do they propagate democracy. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is neither prosperous nor particularly democratic. One need only think of capitalist Nigeria, capitalist Indonesia, capitalist Thailand, capitalist Haiti, capitalist Colombia, capitalist Pakistan, capitalist South Africa, capitalist Latvia, and various other members of the Free World--more accurately, the Free Market World.
A prosperous, politically literate populace with high expectations about its standard of living and a keen sense of entitlement, pushing for continually better social conditions, is not the plutocracy's notion of an ideal workforce and a properly pliant polity. Corporate investors prefer poor populations. The poorer you are, the harder you will work-for less. The poorer you are, the less equipped you are to defend yourself against the abuses of wealth.
In the corporate world of "free-trade," the number of billionaires is increasing faster than ever while the number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world's population. Poverty spreads as wealth accumulates.
Consider the United States. In the last eight years alone, while vast fortunes accrued at record rates, an additional six million Americans sank below the poverty level; median family income declined by over $2,000; consumer debt more than doubled; over seven million Americans lost their health insurance, and more than four million lost their pensions; meanwhile homelessness increased and housing foreclosures reached pandemic levels.
Friday, January 16, 2009
January 16, 2009
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SAY NO TO FORGIVE AND FORGET
It would have been easy after the Second World War ended to say we shouldn't pursue war crimes against the perpetrators of the Nazi atrocities. Germany was defeated. We could have looked forward, not back, and left the atrocities to molder. But war crimes trials were the right thing to do. No trial, no punishment, could begin to establish justice, but the trials were the closest we could come. And so it is with Bush and his cohorts. They should not be allowed to sidle off into a comfortable retirement. The full scope of their crimes should be aired out in full investigations and trials. This commentary by Paul Krugman is at www.commondreams.org:
Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?
In fact, we've already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it's giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off - which isn't too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.
Now, it's true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SAY NO TO FORGIVE AND FORGET
It would have been easy after the Second World War ended to say we shouldn't pursue war crimes against the perpetrators of the Nazi atrocities. Germany was defeated. We could have looked forward, not back, and left the atrocities to molder. But war crimes trials were the right thing to do. No trial, no punishment, could begin to establish justice, but the trials were the closest we could come. And so it is with Bush and his cohorts. They should not be allowed to sidle off into a comfortable retirement. The full scope of their crimes should be aired out in full investigations and trials. This commentary by Paul Krugman is at www.commondreams.org:
Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?
In fact, we've already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it's giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off - which isn't too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.
Now, it's true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
January 15, 2009
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
A Word From Rubber Stamp Radanovich
There's nothing like a missive from your hard right-wing Congressman to warm the cockles of your heart. And to think that tax money goes to pay for this drivel to be sent in the mail. The Congressman from this district, George Radanovich, has consistently supported the Bush administration, so I have attached the moniker "Rubber Stamp" to describe him.
Ole Rubber Stamp claims in this mailing that, . . . "Americans have lost a sense of personal responsibility, much of which has been facilitated by an overreaching federal government. The vast expansion of the government into the private sector has enabled a culture of irresponsibility with regard to serious matters such as debt and finance."
Of course, it's all our fault! The sharks on Wall Street, who managed to shed regulation like a duck sheds water, don't have any hand in this. The bought agencies of the federal government, who didn't fulfill their oversight duties, had nothing to do with it either. It's just us irresponsible people out here in consumer land.
Rubber Stamp has a survey attached to his little propaganda piece about issues most important to "you and your family." There's nary a word about ending the war in Iraq, restoring civil liberties, providing regulatory oversight, or impeaching the members of the Bush administration who gave us this nightmare.
It's a pity that Democrats have not put up any serious candidate to get this guy out of Congress. Let's hope that changes in the next election cycle.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
A Word From Rubber Stamp Radanovich
There's nothing like a missive from your hard right-wing Congressman to warm the cockles of your heart. And to think that tax money goes to pay for this drivel to be sent in the mail. The Congressman from this district, George Radanovich, has consistently supported the Bush administration, so I have attached the moniker "Rubber Stamp" to describe him.
Ole Rubber Stamp claims in this mailing that, . . . "Americans have lost a sense of personal responsibility, much of which has been facilitated by an overreaching federal government. The vast expansion of the government into the private sector has enabled a culture of irresponsibility with regard to serious matters such as debt and finance."
Of course, it's all our fault! The sharks on Wall Street, who managed to shed regulation like a duck sheds water, don't have any hand in this. The bought agencies of the federal government, who didn't fulfill their oversight duties, had nothing to do with it either. It's just us irresponsible people out here in consumer land.
Rubber Stamp has a survey attached to his little propaganda piece about issues most important to "you and your family." There's nary a word about ending the war in Iraq, restoring civil liberties, providing regulatory oversight, or impeaching the members of the Bush administration who gave us this nightmare.
It's a pity that Democrats have not put up any serious candidate to get this guy out of Congress. Let's hope that changes in the next election cycle.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
January 11, 2009
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WHAT A LEGACY
George W. Bush has said he doesn't worry about what history will think because he won't be around to read it. To the contrary, he can pretty much determine his legacy right now. He has led the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our history. He failed to stop the terrorist attacks on 9/11 despite ample warnings. He lied us into a war in Iraq that has rained death and destruction on Iraqis and killed and wounded so many of own military. He has ignored global climate change, which threatens all life on earth. He leaves the worst economy since the Great Depression. This commentary by Helen Thomas is at www.commondreams.org:
Because of Bush's policies, the U.S. also is complicit in the Israeli attack on the Palestinians on the Gaza Strip by providing a "made-in-America" high-tech arsenal for the assault and blocking a ceasefire for nearly two weeks, a move intended to help the Israelis consolidate their hold.
Not to worry, Bush says he isn't concerned about how history will view his militant eight years in the White House, telling ABC News that he "won't be around to read it."
Well, they say that journalism is the first draft of history. So I am going to predict that those future historians will not deal kindly with the Bush presidency.
It's true -- as Bush and company point at their proudest achievement-- there have been no new terrorist attacks on the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.
But they fail to acknowledge administration mistakes before and after that fateful day, starting with the fact that White House and security officials ignored significant early warnings of an imminent strike against the U.S.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WHAT A LEGACY
George W. Bush has said he doesn't worry about what history will think because he won't be around to read it. To the contrary, he can pretty much determine his legacy right now. He has led the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our history. He failed to stop the terrorist attacks on 9/11 despite ample warnings. He lied us into a war in Iraq that has rained death and destruction on Iraqis and killed and wounded so many of own military. He has ignored global climate change, which threatens all life on earth. He leaves the worst economy since the Great Depression. This commentary by Helen Thomas is at www.commondreams.org:
Because of Bush's policies, the U.S. also is complicit in the Israeli attack on the Palestinians on the Gaza Strip by providing a "made-in-America" high-tech arsenal for the assault and blocking a ceasefire for nearly two weeks, a move intended to help the Israelis consolidate their hold.
Not to worry, Bush says he isn't concerned about how history will view his militant eight years in the White House, telling ABC News that he "won't be around to read it."
Well, they say that journalism is the first draft of history. So I am going to predict that those future historians will not deal kindly with the Bush presidency.
It's true -- as Bush and company point at their proudest achievement-- there have been no new terrorist attacks on the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.
But they fail to acknowledge administration mistakes before and after that fateful day, starting with the fact that White House and security officials ignored significant early warnings of an imminent strike against the U.S.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
January 6, 2009
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CALIFORNIA: GOOD RIDDANCE TO BUSH
The last paragraph of this article contains the rather interesting observation that California will miss Bush because we won't have to him to “kick around” anymore. What nonsense. Bush has done incredible damage to California and to the rest of the country. The article by Carla Marinucci is at www.sfgate.com:
The 43rd president's legacy in the Golden State, according to the unsparing assessment of Democratic consultant Phil Trounstine, is "zilch."
"He regarded California sort of like France - as a foreign entity for which he had nothing but scorn," said Trounstine. "Except for this: He did more damage to California than he ever did to France."
With just 15 days remaining for the Bush administration, political observers note that the Republican president's chilly relationship with the decidedly blue state - a relationship that is poised to undergo a revolution with Democratic President-elect Barack Obama - means that many here will define the Bush legacy in California as forgettable at best.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CALIFORNIA: GOOD RIDDANCE TO BUSH
The last paragraph of this article contains the rather interesting observation that California will miss Bush because we won't have to him to “kick around” anymore. What nonsense. Bush has done incredible damage to California and to the rest of the country. The article by Carla Marinucci is at www.sfgate.com:
The 43rd president's legacy in the Golden State, according to the unsparing assessment of Democratic consultant Phil Trounstine, is "zilch."
"He regarded California sort of like France - as a foreign entity for which he had nothing but scorn," said Trounstine. "Except for this: He did more damage to California than he ever did to France."
With just 15 days remaining for the Bush administration, political observers note that the Republican president's chilly relationship with the decidedly blue state - a relationship that is poised to undergo a revolution with Democratic President-elect Barack Obama - means that many here will define the Bush legacy in California as forgettable at best.
Monday, January 05, 2009
January 5, 2009
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
The media and political establishment in the United States are strongly pro-Israel. We're told repeatedly that the Israelis are under dire threat from their Arab neighbors. We aren't told how the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip basically suffer from apartheid. Now we're told that the Israelis are dropping white phosophrous shells on the mostly civilian population in Gaza. This is reprehensible against even military targets. This article by Jeremy Hammond is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.
Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.
Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
The media and political establishment in the United States are strongly pro-Israel. We're told repeatedly that the Israelis are under dire threat from their Arab neighbors. We aren't told how the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip basically suffer from apartheid. Now we're told that the Israelis are dropping white phosophrous shells on the mostly civilian population in Gaza. This is reprehensible against even military targets. This article by Jeremy Hammond is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.
Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.
Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
December 28, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
A CROOK BY ANY OTHER NAME
As George W. Bush finally leaves the world stage, leaving disaster in his wake, we can already see efforts to revise the history of the Bush administration. Revisionism is common in history. Many times the revisionists take a more critical look at historical figures, but sometimes they attempt to flip history on its head. There were attempts to make Richard Nixon look better. The right-wing revisionists have contorted themselves in discussions of Ronald Reagan. We can expect a full-fledged effort to make the filthy Bush administration look competent. This commentary by Robert Parry is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney make their case for some positive legacy from the past eight years, two arguments are playing key roles: the notion that torturing terror suspects saved American lives and the belief that Bush’s Iraq troop "surge" transformed a disaster into something close to "victory."
Not only will these twin arguments be important in defining the public’s future impression of where Bush should rank on the presidential list, but they could constrain how far President Barack Obama can go in reversing these policies. In other words, the perception of the past can affect the future.
Though most current thinking holds that George W. Bush might want to trademark the slogan "Worst President Ever," America's powerful right-wing media (and its many allies in the mainstream press) will surely seek to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation as much as possible.
Even elevating Bush to the status of a presidential mediocrity might open the door for a revival of the Bush Dynasty with brother Jeb already eyeing one of Florida’s U.S. Senate seats and possibly harboring grander ambitions.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
A CROOK BY ANY OTHER NAME
As George W. Bush finally leaves the world stage, leaving disaster in his wake, we can already see efforts to revise the history of the Bush administration. Revisionism is common in history. Many times the revisionists take a more critical look at historical figures, but sometimes they attempt to flip history on its head. There were attempts to make Richard Nixon look better. The right-wing revisionists have contorted themselves in discussions of Ronald Reagan. We can expect a full-fledged effort to make the filthy Bush administration look competent. This commentary by Robert Parry is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney make their case for some positive legacy from the past eight years, two arguments are playing key roles: the notion that torturing terror suspects saved American lives and the belief that Bush’s Iraq troop "surge" transformed a disaster into something close to "victory."
Not only will these twin arguments be important in defining the public’s future impression of where Bush should rank on the presidential list, but they could constrain how far President Barack Obama can go in reversing these policies. In other words, the perception of the past can affect the future.
Though most current thinking holds that George W. Bush might want to trademark the slogan "Worst President Ever," America's powerful right-wing media (and its many allies in the mainstream press) will surely seek to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation as much as possible.
Even elevating Bush to the status of a presidential mediocrity might open the door for a revival of the Bush Dynasty with brother Jeb already eyeing one of Florida’s U.S. Senate seats and possibly harboring grander ambitions.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
December 20, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT WING CONTEMPT FOR WORKING PEOPLE
According to right-wingers, we of the working class aren't "achievers." We who do the drudge jobs, the dangerous jobs, the dirty and smelly jobs are just there to be squeezed for the last cent of profit while the "achievers" put their profits in the bank and complain about any concessions to workers. In California it has been increasingly difficult to even file for unemployment. When you call to file you get a phone tree message that they're just too darned busy to take your call and they hang up on you. I have a friend who was laid off and has tried for two weeks to get through. It's disgraceful. I'm hopeful, like Bob Herbert in this column, that the Obama administration will bring positive changes for working people. This column is at www.nytimes.com:
Ordinary workers have suffered. It took years to get a lousy little boost in the minimum wage for the working poor. Attempts to expand health insurance coverage were fought almost to a standstill. Guaranteed pensions vanished. And the maniacs who set fire to the economy with their incendiary financial instruments (yet another form of voodoo) were hot to privatize Social Security.
As Andy Stern, president of the huge Service Employees International Union, told me on Friday: “We’ve had a 25-year experience with market-worshipping, deregulating, privatizing, trickle-down policies, and it has ended us up with the greatest economy on earth staggering, and with the greatest amount of inequality since the Great Depression.”
The contempt for workers over this long period has hardly been hidden. Until Mr. Bush was forced by circumstances to tap the TARP program for the auto industry loans (small potatoes compared with the gargantuan Wall Street bailouts), the administration had gone out of its way to keep the program’s hundreds of billions of dollars reserved for the elites of the financial services industry and their associates.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
RIGHT WING CONTEMPT FOR WORKING PEOPLE
According to right-wingers, we of the working class aren't "achievers." We who do the drudge jobs, the dangerous jobs, the dirty and smelly jobs are just there to be squeezed for the last cent of profit while the "achievers" put their profits in the bank and complain about any concessions to workers. In California it has been increasingly difficult to even file for unemployment. When you call to file you get a phone tree message that they're just too darned busy to take your call and they hang up on you. I have a friend who was laid off and has tried for two weeks to get through. It's disgraceful. I'm hopeful, like Bob Herbert in this column, that the Obama administration will bring positive changes for working people. This column is at www.nytimes.com:
Ordinary workers have suffered. It took years to get a lousy little boost in the minimum wage for the working poor. Attempts to expand health insurance coverage were fought almost to a standstill. Guaranteed pensions vanished. And the maniacs who set fire to the economy with their incendiary financial instruments (yet another form of voodoo) were hot to privatize Social Security.
As Andy Stern, president of the huge Service Employees International Union, told me on Friday: “We’ve had a 25-year experience with market-worshipping, deregulating, privatizing, trickle-down policies, and it has ended us up with the greatest economy on earth staggering, and with the greatest amount of inequality since the Great Depression.”
The contempt for workers over this long period has hardly been hidden. Until Mr. Bush was forced by circumstances to tap the TARP program for the auto industry loans (small potatoes compared with the gargantuan Wall Street bailouts), the administration had gone out of its way to keep the program’s hundreds of billions of dollars reserved for the elites of the financial services industry and their associates.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
December 14, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH DESTRUCTIVE TO THE END
George W. Bush is rushing through a series of so-called "midnight regulations" that will have severe negative impact on the environment and civil liberties. He can get away with this because of a loophole in the law that allows him to bypass Congress. It reminds me a little of a defeated military foe that burns the bridges and poisons the grain. Bush isn't satisfied with the damage he's already done to the United States and the world. This article by Paul Harris is at www.guardian.co.uk:
The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.'
Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president.
Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. One rule will make it easier for coal companies to dump debris from strip mining into valleys and streams. The process is part of an environmentally damaging technique known as 'mountain-top removal mining'. It involves literally removing the top of a mountain to excavate a coal seam and pouring the debris into a valley, which is then filled up with rock. The new rule will make that dumping easier.
Another midnight regulation will allow power companies to build coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks. Yet another regulation will allow coal-fired stations to increase their emissions without installing new anti-pollution equipment.
THE UGLY HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Let me be frank. I detest the Republican party. In its whole history, except for a very brief interlude with Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican party had tried to make serfs out of working men and women. They've tried to destroy unions, opposed any kind of fair wage compensation, used hatred of gays and minorities to win elections, created phony scares of Communism and terrorism, and consistently wrecked the economy. This commentary by J. Miller Rampant is at http://jamillerrampant.blogspot.com:
When the Republican Party handed itself heart and soul to Big Business in the 1890s, it was the start of an epic battle to defend power and privilege in the United States at all costs. Briefly, under Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican Party was captured by the progressive wing, and TR had little sympathy for the "malefactors of great wealth" as he called them. But by the 1920s the fanatically pro-business, anti-worker orientation of the Republican Party was set. I have wracked my brain and I cannot think of ANY time the Republicans EVER acted in the interests of ordinary working men and women. They and their allies fought savagely against unions, never hesitating to use violence and state power to destroy them. (There is a myth that violence in labor disputes is only union-generated; check out Henry Ford's war against the unions to see a powerful refutation of this, or the war of the coal mine owners against the unions in West Virginia and Kentucky.)
This pro-business, anti-worker faction of the Republican Party hated FDR as if he were Satan incarnate. It is this faction of the Republican Party that fought against child labor laws, the right of workers to organize, minimum wage laws, worker safety protections, and every other proposal that was designed to grant working men and women the rights and dignity they deserved. The modern descendants of these violently anti-worker conservatives control part of the Republican Party today. They are the ones who voted against financial aid to the Big Three automakers so they could kill off the United Auto Workers, their sworn enemies since the 1930s. We should not be surprised.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH DESTRUCTIVE TO THE END
George W. Bush is rushing through a series of so-called "midnight regulations" that will have severe negative impact on the environment and civil liberties. He can get away with this because of a loophole in the law that allows him to bypass Congress. It reminds me a little of a defeated military foe that burns the bridges and poisons the grain. Bush isn't satisfied with the damage he's already done to the United States and the world. This article by Paul Harris is at www.guardian.co.uk:
The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.'
Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president.
Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. One rule will make it easier for coal companies to dump debris from strip mining into valleys and streams. The process is part of an environmentally damaging technique known as 'mountain-top removal mining'. It involves literally removing the top of a mountain to excavate a coal seam and pouring the debris into a valley, which is then filled up with rock. The new rule will make that dumping easier.
Another midnight regulation will allow power companies to build coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks. Yet another regulation will allow coal-fired stations to increase their emissions without installing new anti-pollution equipment.
THE UGLY HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Let me be frank. I detest the Republican party. In its whole history, except for a very brief interlude with Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican party had tried to make serfs out of working men and women. They've tried to destroy unions, opposed any kind of fair wage compensation, used hatred of gays and minorities to win elections, created phony scares of Communism and terrorism, and consistently wrecked the economy. This commentary by J. Miller Rampant is at http://jamillerrampant.blogspot.com:
When the Republican Party handed itself heart and soul to Big Business in the 1890s, it was the start of an epic battle to defend power and privilege in the United States at all costs. Briefly, under Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican Party was captured by the progressive wing, and TR had little sympathy for the "malefactors of great wealth" as he called them. But by the 1920s the fanatically pro-business, anti-worker orientation of the Republican Party was set. I have wracked my brain and I cannot think of ANY time the Republicans EVER acted in the interests of ordinary working men and women. They and their allies fought savagely against unions, never hesitating to use violence and state power to destroy them. (There is a myth that violence in labor disputes is only union-generated; check out Henry Ford's war against the unions to see a powerful refutation of this, or the war of the coal mine owners against the unions in West Virginia and Kentucky.)
This pro-business, anti-worker faction of the Republican Party hated FDR as if he were Satan incarnate. It is this faction of the Republican Party that fought against child labor laws, the right of workers to organize, minimum wage laws, worker safety protections, and every other proposal that was designed to grant working men and women the rights and dignity they deserved. The modern descendants of these violently anti-worker conservatives control part of the Republican Party today. They are the ones who voted against financial aid to the Big Three automakers so they could kill off the United Auto Workers, their sworn enemies since the 1930s. We should not be surprised.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
December 7, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S BLOODY HANDS
Right-wingers are busy little revisionists. They have to be because their policies create such disasters. After Ronald Reagan left the White House the busy little revisionists were telling us that the massive deficits created by Reagan's policies weren't really his fault. In fact, they say, there were more tax revenues coming in; it was just Congress spending too much money. Now the busy little revisionists are telling us that Bush "kept us safe" from terrorism. He "liberated" the Iraqis. He brought down the guy who killed over 300,000 of his "own people." Never mind that Bush has been responsible for more death and destruction than Saddam Hussein ever was This commentary by Barry Nolan is at www.commondreams.org:
After attending a cheery little GOP Christmas party, and in the charitable spirit of the season, Wall Street Journal columnist and Republican stalwart Peggy Noonan reflected on the Bush years Friday. (You can read the full column by clicking here.) She declares that when historians look back on Bush and try to sum it all up, they will most likely say something like: "At least he kept us safe." Merry Christmas President Bush. Ms. Noonan then advises the Democrats to pay proper attention to the warnings contained in national security studies. Darn good advice.
But strangely, her column avoids any mention at all of the rather strongly worded security warning that was contained in the Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to President Bush one month before the 9-11 attacks. Titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," the warning contained the rather prescient observation that: "FBI information...indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Sadly, that warning to Bush gained little traction with Republicans and 2,973 people died on 9-11. There was no mention of those dead in the column.
Ms. Noonan also avoids any mention of the 4,209 US service men and women who have been killed in Iraq, where the terrorists could simply walk to work. No mention of the 30,000 wounded. No mention of the 445 US contractors killed in Iraq. No acknowledgment that many of these men and women were in the National Guard and were called away from their useful civilian jobs in America as firemen, policemen, doctors and lawyers, and sent to die in a reckless and needless war in Iraq.
PEARL HARBOR AND THE DARK RIGHT-WING PSYCHE
One common trait that runs through right-wing land is paranoia. Right-wingers see conspiracies everywhere. That's why Joseph McCarthy red-baiting was so effective with right-wingers back in the 1950's. That red-baiting propelled the career of Richard M. Nixon. Right-wingers have promulgated the myth that FDR wanted the United States to get into World War II and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen because Pearl Harbor provided the excuse to enter the war. The whole idea is ludicrous. This article by Sherwood Ross is at www.commondreams.org:
The idea that FDR, a former assistant secretary of the Navy in World War One, would have deliberately concealed knowledge of an imminent attack on a U.S. base, defies everything known about the character of the man, his lifelong love of ships, (see his childhood sketches on the wall at Hyde Park), and his visionary efforts to build shipyards to mass produce warships and to modernize the fleet upon taking office in 1933. In fact, FDR sparked the largest naval buildup in U.S. history from the time he took office, doubling naval personnel between 1939 and 1941 alone. Six months after Pearl Harbor at the battle of Midway, the Japanese navy suffered a terrible reverse largely at the hands of U.S. vessels built before the war under FDR or under prior presidents. If FDR had advanced knowledge of an imminent attack to precipitate a war with Japan he would at minimum have ordered the fleet into battle readiness and sent it steaming out into open water. That FDR knew the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and allowed it to happen is one conspiracy theory that should be sunk promptly.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S BLOODY HANDS
Right-wingers are busy little revisionists. They have to be because their policies create such disasters. After Ronald Reagan left the White House the busy little revisionists were telling us that the massive deficits created by Reagan's policies weren't really his fault. In fact, they say, there were more tax revenues coming in; it was just Congress spending too much money. Now the busy little revisionists are telling us that Bush "kept us safe" from terrorism. He "liberated" the Iraqis. He brought down the guy who killed over 300,000 of his "own people." Never mind that Bush has been responsible for more death and destruction than Saddam Hussein ever was This commentary by Barry Nolan is at www.commondreams.org:
After attending a cheery little GOP Christmas party, and in the charitable spirit of the season, Wall Street Journal columnist and Republican stalwart Peggy Noonan reflected on the Bush years Friday. (You can read the full column by clicking here.) She declares that when historians look back on Bush and try to sum it all up, they will most likely say something like: "At least he kept us safe." Merry Christmas President Bush. Ms. Noonan then advises the Democrats to pay proper attention to the warnings contained in national security studies. Darn good advice.
But strangely, her column avoids any mention at all of the rather strongly worded security warning that was contained in the Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to President Bush one month before the 9-11 attacks. Titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," the warning contained the rather prescient observation that: "FBI information...indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Sadly, that warning to Bush gained little traction with Republicans and 2,973 people died on 9-11. There was no mention of those dead in the column.
Ms. Noonan also avoids any mention of the 4,209 US service men and women who have been killed in Iraq, where the terrorists could simply walk to work. No mention of the 30,000 wounded. No mention of the 445 US contractors killed in Iraq. No acknowledgment that many of these men and women were in the National Guard and were called away from their useful civilian jobs in America as firemen, policemen, doctors and lawyers, and sent to die in a reckless and needless war in Iraq.
PEARL HARBOR AND THE DARK RIGHT-WING PSYCHE
One common trait that runs through right-wing land is paranoia. Right-wingers see conspiracies everywhere. That's why Joseph McCarthy red-baiting was so effective with right-wingers back in the 1950's. That red-baiting propelled the career of Richard M. Nixon. Right-wingers have promulgated the myth that FDR wanted the United States to get into World War II and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen because Pearl Harbor provided the excuse to enter the war. The whole idea is ludicrous. This article by Sherwood Ross is at www.commondreams.org:
The idea that FDR, a former assistant secretary of the Navy in World War One, would have deliberately concealed knowledge of an imminent attack on a U.S. base, defies everything known about the character of the man, his lifelong love of ships, (see his childhood sketches on the wall at Hyde Park), and his visionary efforts to build shipyards to mass produce warships and to modernize the fleet upon taking office in 1933. In fact, FDR sparked the largest naval buildup in U.S. history from the time he took office, doubling naval personnel between 1939 and 1941 alone. Six months after Pearl Harbor at the battle of Midway, the Japanese navy suffered a terrible reverse largely at the hands of U.S. vessels built before the war under FDR or under prior presidents. If FDR had advanced knowledge of an imminent attack to precipitate a war with Japan he would at minimum have ordered the fleet into battle readiness and sent it steaming out into open water. That FDR knew the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and allowed it to happen is one conspiracy theory that should be sunk promptly.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
December 2, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE NEEDS OF THE MANY
Republican philosophy is to benefit the few at the expense of the many. They try to con us into believing that the benefits to the rich will trickle down to the rest of us. History shows what a lie that is. The incoming Obama administration needs to put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. This commentary by Bob Herbert is at www.nytimes.com:
President-elect Obama has talked of a “new dawn of American leadership.” Three-quarters of a century ago, Franklin Roosevelt promised a New Deal and said his biggest task was “to put people to work.”
That’s as appropriate a cue as any for the next president. I hope Mr. Obama’s “new dawn” portends more than just a few nibbles around the edges of change. We need change that brings about more shared sacrifice in wartime and tough times, and a more equitable distribution of the nation’s resources all the time.
I want to know who in the Obama administration will be listening to the young girl on the South Side of Chicago whose future is constrained by a lousy public school, and the factory worker in Toledo whose family’s future has been trampled by unrestrained corporate greed and unfair trade policies.
All the evidence is that the next administration will be competent and smart as hell. Now I’d like to know for whom they plan to deliver.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE NEEDS OF THE MANY
Republican philosophy is to benefit the few at the expense of the many. They try to con us into believing that the benefits to the rich will trickle down to the rest of us. History shows what a lie that is. The incoming Obama administration needs to put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. This commentary by Bob Herbert is at www.nytimes.com:
President-elect Obama has talked of a “new dawn of American leadership.” Three-quarters of a century ago, Franklin Roosevelt promised a New Deal and said his biggest task was “to put people to work.”
That’s as appropriate a cue as any for the next president. I hope Mr. Obama’s “new dawn” portends more than just a few nibbles around the edges of change. We need change that brings about more shared sacrifice in wartime and tough times, and a more equitable distribution of the nation’s resources all the time.
I want to know who in the Obama administration will be listening to the young girl on the South Side of Chicago whose future is constrained by a lousy public school, and the factory worker in Toledo whose family’s future has been trampled by unrestrained corporate greed and unfair trade policies.
All the evidence is that the next administration will be competent and smart as hell. Now I’d like to know for whom they plan to deliver.
Friday, November 28, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)