August 31, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
DO YOU SEE THE IRONY?
Reports are that Hurricane Gustav may turn into another Category 5 hurricane. New Orleans has been evacuated in anticipation that Gustav is going to slam the Gulf Coast. It brings back memories of Hurricane Katrina from three years ago. The right wing has consistently denied the reality of global climate change. One of the consequences of climate change is monster storms like Katrina and Gustav.
John McCain has picked as his running mate a woman who denies the man-made causes of global climate change. McCain and Palin are supposedly headed to the Gulf Coast region. Gustav is even being used as an excuse for Bush and Cheney to ditch the convention. If McCain and Palin want to invoke God, I wonder why God is disrupting their convention? I wonder in human history when we've had such frequent occurrences of Category 5 hurricanes.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
August 30, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN PICKS FRONTIER WOMAN
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN PICKS FRONTIER WOMAN
Here we are in the 21st century, but John Sidney McCain clearly has a hankering for the past. McCain talks almost incessantly about being a POW in Vietnam. His policies hue to the laissez-faire rugged individualism me first tradition of Republican reactionary politics. It's a politics that comes down to a might is right philosophy. If you've got a military, solve differences with military responses. You steer government policy to benefit corporations and the rich. You oppose freedom of choice for women.
So we have a somewhat ironic selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. If a woman were selected for the right reasons, I would at least give a favorable nod to McCain for that. But this is a selection that has "pandering" written all over it. Palin is virulently anti-choice, which appears to be her major appeal. She will enthuse the evangelicals who haven't been thrilled with McCain. She believes in what Mike Malloy has called "the talking snake theory of creation." She's anti-environment and doesn't believe human activity is causing global warming. She's a NRA member and hunter. Her history doesn't suggest someone who is in tune with the challenges of the 21st century. But neither does McCain's history, for that matter.
I can almost see Palin wearing bandoliers of bullets for a rifle and clutching a big hunting knife, still dripping from a fresh kill. I wonder if she churns her own butter and takes on grizzly bears bare-fisted.
This shows McCain's ultimate contempt for the American people and especially for women.
This column by Gail Collins is at www.nytimes.com:
John McCain has a low opinion of the vice presidency, which he’s frequently described as a job that involves attending funerals and checking on the health of the president. (Happy 72nd birthday, John!) There’s a lot we don’t know yet about Palin, and I am personally looking forward to deconstructing her role in the Matanuska Maid Dairy closing crisis. But at first glance, she doesn’t seem much less qualified than Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota who most people thought was the most likely pick. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Palin is a member of the same party as the presidential candidate. And unlike Mitt Romney, she has never gone on vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car.
However, I do feel kind of ticked off at the assumptions that the Republicans seem to be making about female voters. It’s a tad reminiscent of the Dan Quayle selection, when the first George Bush’s advisers decided they could close the gender gap with a cute running mate.
The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong. When the sexes have parted company in modern elections, it’s generally been because women are more likely to be Democrats, and more concerned about protecting the social safety net. "The gender gap traditionally has been determined by party preference, not by the gender of the candidate," said Ruth Mandel of the Eagleton Institute of Politics.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
August 26, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN=COLD WAR AGAIN
About all that John Sidney McCain has going for him is his record as a POW in Vietnam. Prior to getting shot down and captured, McCain dropped bombs from several thousand feet. He wasn't there on the ground to see the blood and carnage he created. That distance from blood and carnage is a part of his foreign policy. He can joke blithely, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" without considering all the innocent civilians who would be slaughtered. McCain is part of the whole neocon cabal that wants endless war against any perceived enemies, whether they be terrorists, Russians, or Chinese. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
Another casualty of McCain’s endless Middle East wars, which soon could include Iran, would almost surely be America’s volunteer army. Though McCain officially opposes a restoration of the draft, it is nearly impossible to envision how his multiple wars could be waged without one.
And McCain also had made clear that he favors a neo-Cold War confrontation with Moscow over another part of the neocon agenda – the encircling of Russia with pro-U.S. regimes and the placement of strategic missile systems near Russia’s borders.
The fencing in of Russia fits with the goals of the neocon Project for the New American Century that envisions an endless era of U.S. military dominance that tolerates no potential rivals, whether an emerging China or a resurgent Russia. The recent Russian-Georgian conflict underscores the risks from this neocon concept.
Containing Russia in this way ultimately would require dangerous brinkmanship. And the McCain/neocon belligerence – like McCain’s melodramatic declaration “we are all Georgians” – would guarantee that one of these swaggering showdowns eventually would push the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN=COLD WAR AGAIN
About all that John Sidney McCain has going for him is his record as a POW in Vietnam. Prior to getting shot down and captured, McCain dropped bombs from several thousand feet. He wasn't there on the ground to see the blood and carnage he created. That distance from blood and carnage is a part of his foreign policy. He can joke blithely, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" without considering all the innocent civilians who would be slaughtered. McCain is part of the whole neocon cabal that wants endless war against any perceived enemies, whether they be terrorists, Russians, or Chinese. This article by Robert Parry is at www.consortiumnews.com:
Another casualty of McCain’s endless Middle East wars, which soon could include Iran, would almost surely be America’s volunteer army. Though McCain officially opposes a restoration of the draft, it is nearly impossible to envision how his multiple wars could be waged without one.
And McCain also had made clear that he favors a neo-Cold War confrontation with Moscow over another part of the neocon agenda – the encircling of Russia with pro-U.S. regimes and the placement of strategic missile systems near Russia’s borders.
The fencing in of Russia fits with the goals of the neocon Project for the New American Century that envisions an endless era of U.S. military dominance that tolerates no potential rivals, whether an emerging China or a resurgent Russia. The recent Russian-Georgian conflict underscores the risks from this neocon concept.
Containing Russia in this way ultimately would require dangerous brinkmanship. And the McCain/neocon belligerence – like McCain’s melodramatic declaration “we are all Georgians” – would guarantee that one of these swaggering showdowns eventually would push the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
August 24, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN THE REACTIONARY
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. You can easily get caught up in the idea that things just aren't the way they used to be, that somehow that past was better. I will grant there are things about the past I like better.
But there are many things about the past we would not want again. We don't want the Cold War back. We don't want racial segregation back. We don't want women forced into back alley abortions. We don't want the Gilded Age, although we've been living through a version of the Gilded Age in the past eight years. John McCain represents all the bad things about the past.
We need a country without a chasm existing between the rich and poor. We need a country that uses diplomacy to solve problems and not military responses. We need a country that cares about the environment and about providing for the needs of all its citizens. This column by Frank Rich is at www.nytimes.com:
How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind. The Obama campaign actually has plans, however imperfect or provisional, to set us on that path; the McCain campaign offers only disposable Band-Aids typified by the “drill now” mantra that even McCain says will only have a “psychological” effect on gas prices.
Even as it points to America’s future, the Obama campaign also has the duty to fill in its opponent’s past. McCain’s attacks on Obama have worked: in last week’s Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, Obama’s favorable rating declined from 59 to 48 percent and his negative rating rose from 27 to 35. Yet McCain still has a lower positive rating (46 percent) and higher negative rating (38) than Obama. McCain is not nearly as popular among Americans, it turns out, as he is among his journalistic camp followers. Should voters actually get to know him, he has nowhere to go but down.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MCCAIN THE REACTIONARY
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. You can easily get caught up in the idea that things just aren't the way they used to be, that somehow that past was better. I will grant there are things about the past I like better.
But there are many things about the past we would not want again. We don't want the Cold War back. We don't want racial segregation back. We don't want women forced into back alley abortions. We don't want the Gilded Age, although we've been living through a version of the Gilded Age in the past eight years. John McCain represents all the bad things about the past.
We need a country without a chasm existing between the rich and poor. We need a country that uses diplomacy to solve problems and not military responses. We need a country that cares about the environment and about providing for the needs of all its citizens. This column by Frank Rich is at www.nytimes.com:
How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind. The Obama campaign actually has plans, however imperfect or provisional, to set us on that path; the McCain campaign offers only disposable Band-Aids typified by the “drill now” mantra that even McCain says will only have a “psychological” effect on gas prices.
Even as it points to America’s future, the Obama campaign also has the duty to fill in its opponent’s past. McCain’s attacks on Obama have worked: in last week’s Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, Obama’s favorable rating declined from 59 to 48 percent and his negative rating rose from 27 to 35. Yet McCain still has a lower positive rating (46 percent) and higher negative rating (38) than Obama. McCain is not nearly as popular among Americans, it turns out, as he is among his journalistic camp followers. Should voters actually get to know him, he has nowhere to go but down.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
August 19, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU WANT A LOUSY ECONOMY, VOTE MCCAIN
A few days ago a typical right-wing letter to The Fresno Bee claimed that Democrats haven't learned that increasing taxes on the rich is just bad, bad, bad. The writer claimed it's not tax cuts for the rich that drive deficits, but spending. The problem is that constructive spending, things like education, health care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment isn't going on. We have too little spending on the crucial segments of our economy. We spend plenty on weapons and on military bases. History shows that Republican economics are a disaster. They've been a disaster since the days of Herbert Hoover. It's time the richest people in this society and corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. It's also time that money be spent legitimately. This article by Dean Baker is at www.commondreams.org:
Senator McCain now faces a similar situation in this election. He is stuck running on the record of a president who is presiding over an economy that is sinking into recession and is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. By contrast, Senator Obama can claim the legacy of the strong economy of the Clinton years.
Tarred with the most dismal record of job creation and income growth of any president since the Great Depression, it would be reasonable to expect that Senator McCain would be defensive on the economy; but not in Swift Boat America.
Instead Senator McCain is filling the airwaves with commercials telling the public that Obama’s tax increases will slow growth and cost the economy jobs. It’s pretty scary stuff to anyone who takes it seriously.
Of course, there’s no truth to Senator McCain’s Swift Boat economics. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, when rich people paid the same tax rates proposed by Senator Obama, the private sector added 15.8 million jobs. By contrast, in the seven years and six months of the Bush administration, when rich people paid the Bush-McCain tax rates, the private sector has added just 3.5 million jobs. And, it is losing jobs at the rate of almost 100,000 a month as President Bush prepares for retirement.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU WANT A LOUSY ECONOMY, VOTE MCCAIN
A few days ago a typical right-wing letter to The Fresno Bee claimed that Democrats haven't learned that increasing taxes on the rich is just bad, bad, bad. The writer claimed it's not tax cuts for the rich that drive deficits, but spending. The problem is that constructive spending, things like education, health care, infrastructure, and protecting the environment isn't going on. We have too little spending on the crucial segments of our economy. We spend plenty on weapons and on military bases. History shows that Republican economics are a disaster. They've been a disaster since the days of Herbert Hoover. It's time the richest people in this society and corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. It's also time that money be spent legitimately. This article by Dean Baker is at www.commondreams.org:
Senator McCain now faces a similar situation in this election. He is stuck running on the record of a president who is presiding over an economy that is sinking into recession and is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. By contrast, Senator Obama can claim the legacy of the strong economy of the Clinton years.
Tarred with the most dismal record of job creation and income growth of any president since the Great Depression, it would be reasonable to expect that Senator McCain would be defensive on the economy; but not in Swift Boat America.
Instead Senator McCain is filling the airwaves with commercials telling the public that Obama’s tax increases will slow growth and cost the economy jobs. It’s pretty scary stuff to anyone who takes it seriously.
Of course, there’s no truth to Senator McCain’s Swift Boat economics. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, when rich people paid the same tax rates proposed by Senator Obama, the private sector added 15.8 million jobs. By contrast, in the seven years and six months of the Bush administration, when rich people paid the Bush-McCain tax rates, the private sector has added just 3.5 million jobs. And, it is losing jobs at the rate of almost 100,000 a month as President Bush prepares for retirement.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
August 16, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF STUPIDITY
The United States has a long history of anti-intellectualism. It baffles me that people don't like smart people. Maybe it's some kind of inferiority complex. But stupidity is costing us dearly. It allowed the most stupid man ever to occupy the Oval Office to assume power and proceed to wreck everything: the economy, foreign policy, environmental stewardship, and civil liberties. The war in Iraq has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives and disrupted the region. Lack of principle and ethics often go together with stupidity. This interview with Susan Jacoby is at www.alternet.org:
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama finally said it.
Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right's stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them -- and us -- unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.
American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes "the jury is still out" on evolution.
Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on "The Colbert Report." Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn't actually list the commandments.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF STUPIDITY
The United States has a long history of anti-intellectualism. It baffles me that people don't like smart people. Maybe it's some kind of inferiority complex. But stupidity is costing us dearly. It allowed the most stupid man ever to occupy the Oval Office to assume power and proceed to wreck everything: the economy, foreign policy, environmental stewardship, and civil liberties. The war in Iraq has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives and disrupted the region. Lack of principle and ethics often go together with stupidity. This interview with Susan Jacoby is at www.alternet.org:
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama finally said it.
Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right's stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them -- and us -- unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.
American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes "the jury is still out" on evolution.
Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on "The Colbert Report." Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn't actually list the commandments.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
August 12, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
REPUBLICANS AND POVERTY
Do you remember the song that said, "Love and marriage go together like a horse a carriage"? It's not quite so romantic with Republicans and poverty, but there is a definite relationship. Under the "trickle down" economics we saw during the Reagan-Bush years and now under George W. Bush poverty has dramatically increased in the United States. This article notes that Fresno has the highest working poverty rate in the country. Fresno, the home of freerepublic.com and an infestation of right-wingers. What a surprise. This article by Tim Jones is at www.chicagotribune.com:
The percentage of working poor in large metropolitan areas soared by 40 percent during the first half of the decade, reversing gains from the 1990s in the fight against poverty, according to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution.
THE OVERVIEW
The study covered 1999 through 2005 and examined 58 metro areas, finding that 34 reported increased rates of "concentrated working poverty," a measurement of low-income workers and families living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Twenty-four areas registered declining rates. Old industrial areas like Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cleveland recorded some of the highest poverty rates. The Midwest and Northeast recorded higher average rates than the South and significantly higher rates than the West.
The note about Fresno:
Detroit and its suburbs in 2005 had the highest concentrated working poverty rate in the Midwest: 27.5 percent, followed by St. Louis (21.6 percent), Cleveland (21.5 percent) and Chicago—plus its Illinois and Northwest Indiana suburbs—at 17.9 percent. The highest rate in the Northeast was the Philadelphia metropolitan area, at 25.5 percent.
The highest rates were recorded in Fresno, Calif., (30 percent) and Augusta-Richmond County, on the Georgia/South Carolina border (29.3 percent). Among the regions, the Northeast had the highest concentrated poverty rate at 17.6 percent, followed by the Midwest at 14.8 percent, the South at 13.1 percent and the West at 6.7 percent.
PRACTICE YOUR OWN ABORTION BELIEFS
I have not weighed in much on the subject of abortion. For one thing, I think abortion is a decision best left to pregnant women and those closest to them. I also think that people with religious objections to abortion who try to make their religious beliefs a part of secular law are violating the First Amendment provisions that prohibit establishment of a religion. Even people who believe in God and religion are divided on the subject of abortion. Some people object to all abortion; others believe abortion is justified when the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy results from rape or incest. The Bible, if one wants to cite the Bible, doesn't even have much to say about abortion. The government should stay out of our personal lives, including the right to choice. This article by Caroline Arnold is at www.commondreams.org:
I can’t accept, either as a matter of personal conscience, or of my commitment to my neighbors and the planet we live on, that we should invest scarce resources, argue endlessly and fruitlessly, and punish women, neglect children and forestall medical research in order to keep every fertilized ovum alive.
I believe we have more important things to do — making sure children already born have enough to eat, medical care and education, and learning to live together without killing each other and consuming the planet we live on.
I don’t think the abortion question is about religion, except insofar as most religious people think that God doesn’t like it because it destroys a human life. What kind of a god worries about the destruction of some unviable human tissue but designs human reproductive systems with a 50 percent attrition rate? What kind of god gives males the choice to conceive a baby but doesn’t give females the choice to reject it? What kind of god allows older children to starve so that younger ones may be born, or permits babies to be born to a life of want, violence and fear? Not one I want to have anything to do with. And I won’t accept the “It was ever thus” argument about human frailty. Just because we humans have always done badly doesn’t excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family.
That said, however, I have to retreat a step. I do have a kind of religious faith, pretty much defined by what it is not. The Skeptic in me demands that the utilitarian condition must be satisfied — God cannot be less than as source of Goodness — love, grace, fulfillment — that is available to all creatures and living systems. But my Resident Mystic keeps insisting that a God worthy of human experience must be more than a bearded old man obsessed with sex and virgins, strewing goodness about while withholding it from sinners and showering wealth on entrepreneurial men, handing down Ten Immutable Rules for human behavior, torturing the wicked, and advising George W. Bush on how to conduct his war on terror. I believe we are called to imagine a God of Truth and Uncertainty, Beauty and Disorder, Joy and Loss, while we are challenged to love our neighbors and seek to live with them in peace.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
REPUBLICANS AND POVERTY
Do you remember the song that said, "Love and marriage go together like a horse a carriage"? It's not quite so romantic with Republicans and poverty, but there is a definite relationship. Under the "trickle down" economics we saw during the Reagan-Bush years and now under George W. Bush poverty has dramatically increased in the United States. This article notes that Fresno has the highest working poverty rate in the country. Fresno, the home of freerepublic.com and an infestation of right-wingers. What a surprise. This article by Tim Jones is at www.chicagotribune.com:
The percentage of working poor in large metropolitan areas soared by 40 percent during the first half of the decade, reversing gains from the 1990s in the fight against poverty, according to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution.
THE OVERVIEW
The study covered 1999 through 2005 and examined 58 metro areas, finding that 34 reported increased rates of "concentrated working poverty," a measurement of low-income workers and families living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Twenty-four areas registered declining rates. Old industrial areas like Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cleveland recorded some of the highest poverty rates. The Midwest and Northeast recorded higher average rates than the South and significantly higher rates than the West.
The note about Fresno:
Detroit and its suburbs in 2005 had the highest concentrated working poverty rate in the Midwest: 27.5 percent, followed by St. Louis (21.6 percent), Cleveland (21.5 percent) and Chicago—plus its Illinois and Northwest Indiana suburbs—at 17.9 percent. The highest rate in the Northeast was the Philadelphia metropolitan area, at 25.5 percent.
The highest rates were recorded in Fresno, Calif., (30 percent) and Augusta-Richmond County, on the Georgia/South Carolina border (29.3 percent). Among the regions, the Northeast had the highest concentrated poverty rate at 17.6 percent, followed by the Midwest at 14.8 percent, the South at 13.1 percent and the West at 6.7 percent.
PRACTICE YOUR OWN ABORTION BELIEFS
I have not weighed in much on the subject of abortion. For one thing, I think abortion is a decision best left to pregnant women and those closest to them. I also think that people with religious objections to abortion who try to make their religious beliefs a part of secular law are violating the First Amendment provisions that prohibit establishment of a religion. Even people who believe in God and religion are divided on the subject of abortion. Some people object to all abortion; others believe abortion is justified when the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy results from rape or incest. The Bible, if one wants to cite the Bible, doesn't even have much to say about abortion. The government should stay out of our personal lives, including the right to choice. This article by Caroline Arnold is at www.commondreams.org:
I can’t accept, either as a matter of personal conscience, or of my commitment to my neighbors and the planet we live on, that we should invest scarce resources, argue endlessly and fruitlessly, and punish women, neglect children and forestall medical research in order to keep every fertilized ovum alive.
I believe we have more important things to do — making sure children already born have enough to eat, medical care and education, and learning to live together without killing each other and consuming the planet we live on.
I don’t think the abortion question is about religion, except insofar as most religious people think that God doesn’t like it because it destroys a human life. What kind of a god worries about the destruction of some unviable human tissue but designs human reproductive systems with a 50 percent attrition rate? What kind of god gives males the choice to conceive a baby but doesn’t give females the choice to reject it? What kind of god allows older children to starve so that younger ones may be born, or permits babies to be born to a life of want, violence and fear? Not one I want to have anything to do with. And I won’t accept the “It was ever thus” argument about human frailty. Just because we humans have always done badly doesn’t excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family.
That said, however, I have to retreat a step. I do have a kind of religious faith, pretty much defined by what it is not. The Skeptic in me demands that the utilitarian condition must be satisfied — God cannot be less than as source of Goodness — love, grace, fulfillment — that is available to all creatures and living systems. But my Resident Mystic keeps insisting that a God worthy of human experience must be more than a bearded old man obsessed with sex and virgins, strewing goodness about while withholding it from sinners and showering wealth on entrepreneurial men, handing down Ten Immutable Rules for human behavior, torturing the wicked, and advising George W. Bush on how to conduct his war on terror. I believe we are called to imagine a God of Truth and Uncertainty, Beauty and Disorder, Joy and Loss, while we are challenged to love our neighbors and seek to live with them in peace.
Monday, August 11, 2008
August 11, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE
Right-wingers argue that the society that works best is with government that works least. You can't have those nasty regulations. You can't have any social safety net because, you know, it makes people "dependent." Everything works best if it's privatized and it's every man for himself (women aren't much of a consideration in right-wing land). But the truth is that government has a vital role in providing and maintaining infrastructure, in providing a regulatory framework, and insuring that predators don't get free rein. This article by Joseph Stiglitz is at www.alternet.org:
Failures to promote social solidarity can have other costs, not the least of which are the social and private expenditures required to protect property and incarcerate criminals. It is estimated that within a few years, America will have more people working in the security business than in education. A year in prison can cost more than a year at Harvard. The cost of incarcerating two million Americans -- one of the highest per capita rates (pdf) in the world -- should be viewed as a subtraction from GDP, yet it is added on.
A second major difference between left and right concerns the role of the state in promoting development. The left understands that the government's role in providing infrastructure and education, developing technology, and even acting as an entrepreneur is vital. Government laid the foundations of the internet and the modern biotechnology revolutions. In the 19th century, research at America's government-supported universities provided the basis for the agricultural revolution. Government then brought these advances to millions of American farmers. Small business loans have been pivotal in creating not only new businesses, but whole new industries.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE
Right-wingers argue that the society that works best is with government that works least. You can't have those nasty regulations. You can't have any social safety net because, you know, it makes people "dependent." Everything works best if it's privatized and it's every man for himself (women aren't much of a consideration in right-wing land). But the truth is that government has a vital role in providing and maintaining infrastructure, in providing a regulatory framework, and insuring that predators don't get free rein. This article by Joseph Stiglitz is at www.alternet.org:
Failures to promote social solidarity can have other costs, not the least of which are the social and private expenditures required to protect property and incarcerate criminals. It is estimated that within a few years, America will have more people working in the security business than in education. A year in prison can cost more than a year at Harvard. The cost of incarcerating two million Americans -- one of the highest per capita rates (pdf) in the world -- should be viewed as a subtraction from GDP, yet it is added on.
A second major difference between left and right concerns the role of the state in promoting development. The left understands that the government's role in providing infrastructure and education, developing technology, and even acting as an entrepreneur is vital. Government laid the foundations of the internet and the modern biotechnology revolutions. In the 19th century, research at America's government-supported universities provided the basis for the agricultural revolution. Government then brought these advances to millions of American farmers. Small business loans have been pivotal in creating not only new businesses, but whole new industries.
Monday, August 04, 2008
August 04, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CONSERVATISM IS A DISASTER
If you like jobs going offshore, if you like tainted food and medicine, if you like gargantuan government deficits, if you like the housing crisis, if you like roasting due to global climate change, if you like the government spying on you, if you like getting involved in bloody and unnecessary wars, and if you think that torture represents us at our best, you must be a conservative. This article by Greg Anrig is at www.washingtonpost.com:
The single theme that most animated the modern conservative movement was the conviction that government was the problem and market forces the solution. It was a simple, elegant, politically attractive idea, and the right applied it to virtually every major domestic challenge -- retirement security, health care, education, jobs, the environment and so on. Whatever the issue, conservatives proposed substituting market forces for government -- pushing the bureaucrats aside and letting private-sector competition work to everyone's benefit.
So they advocated creating health savings accounts, handing out school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, shifting government functions to private contractors, and curtailing regulations on public health, safety, the environment and more. And, of course, they pushed to cut taxes to further weaken the public sector by "starving the beast." President Bush has followed this playbook more closely than any previous president, including Reagan, notwithstanding today's desperate efforts by the right to distance itself from the deeply unpopular chief executive.
But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver on the promises the conservatives made, and in many instances, the dogma has actually created new problems. Particularly after Hurricane Katrina, when Americans saw how hapless the Federal Emergency Management Agency was, the public has begun to realize that the right's hostility toward government has produced only ineffective government.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CONSERVATISM IS A DISASTER
If you like jobs going offshore, if you like tainted food and medicine, if you like gargantuan government deficits, if you like the housing crisis, if you like roasting due to global climate change, if you like the government spying on you, if you like getting involved in bloody and unnecessary wars, and if you think that torture represents us at our best, you must be a conservative. This article by Greg Anrig is at www.washingtonpost.com:
The single theme that most animated the modern conservative movement was the conviction that government was the problem and market forces the solution. It was a simple, elegant, politically attractive idea, and the right applied it to virtually every major domestic challenge -- retirement security, health care, education, jobs, the environment and so on. Whatever the issue, conservatives proposed substituting market forces for government -- pushing the bureaucrats aside and letting private-sector competition work to everyone's benefit.
So they advocated creating health savings accounts, handing out school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, shifting government functions to private contractors, and curtailing regulations on public health, safety, the environment and more. And, of course, they pushed to cut taxes to further weaken the public sector by "starving the beast." President Bush has followed this playbook more closely than any previous president, including Reagan, notwithstanding today's desperate efforts by the right to distance itself from the deeply unpopular chief executive.
But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver on the promises the conservatives made, and in many instances, the dogma has actually created new problems. Particularly after Hurricane Katrina, when Americans saw how hapless the Federal Emergency Management Agency was, the public has begun to realize that the right's hostility toward government has produced only ineffective government.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
August 03, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU CAN'T WIN, SMEAR
John McCain isn't such a maverick after all. He's following in the "grand" Republican tradition of smearing his opponent rather than running honestly on issues. Of course, McCain hasn't got many issues to run on. Everything the Bush administration has touched has been a disaster, and McCain only promises more of the same. So McCain has turned to the Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove playbook of running on non-issues. Attack your opponent and distract attention and maybe you can fool enough people to get elected. This article by By John Heilemann is at nymag.com:
For those not keeping score, a quick review of the McCain campaign’s lunge for Obama’s jugular. First, its new slogan: "Country first," with its inverse insinuation that Obama puts something else (i.e., his own ambition) ahead of the nation. Second, McCain’s accusation that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Third, the McCain ad "Troops," which claims that Obama, while in Germany, "made time to go the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops—seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras." And, finally, the ad "Celeb," with its intercut images of Obama in Berlin, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears.
The strategy behind all this isn’t hard to discern: Drive up Obama’s negatives and render him unacceptable to pivotal voting blocs. Thus the depiction of him as too young, too feckless, and too pampered to be president. (In almost every shot in the McCain ads, Obama is smiling flashily, whereas McCain is pictured as weathered, sober, staring hard into the distance—a clever bit of jujitsu, using Obama’s pretty mug against him.) Thus the portrayal of him as precious, self-infatuated, and effete: "Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand ‘MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew—Black Forest Berry Honest Tea’ and worry about the price of arugula," wrote campaign manager Rick Davis in an e-mail announcing "Celeb." And thus the emphasis on Obama’s rock-star persona, designed to engender envy and contempt among the swath of Middle America for which hipness is no virtue but a sign of pretension.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
IF YOU CAN'T WIN, SMEAR
John McCain isn't such a maverick after all. He's following in the "grand" Republican tradition of smearing his opponent rather than running honestly on issues. Of course, McCain hasn't got many issues to run on. Everything the Bush administration has touched has been a disaster, and McCain only promises more of the same. So McCain has turned to the Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove playbook of running on non-issues. Attack your opponent and distract attention and maybe you can fool enough people to get elected. This article by By John Heilemann is at nymag.com:
For those not keeping score, a quick review of the McCain campaign’s lunge for Obama’s jugular. First, its new slogan: "Country first," with its inverse insinuation that Obama puts something else (i.e., his own ambition) ahead of the nation. Second, McCain’s accusation that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Third, the McCain ad "Troops," which claims that Obama, while in Germany, "made time to go the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops—seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras." And, finally, the ad "Celeb," with its intercut images of Obama in Berlin, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears.
The strategy behind all this isn’t hard to discern: Drive up Obama’s negatives and render him unacceptable to pivotal voting blocs. Thus the depiction of him as too young, too feckless, and too pampered to be president. (In almost every shot in the McCain ads, Obama is smiling flashily, whereas McCain is pictured as weathered, sober, staring hard into the distance—a clever bit of jujitsu, using Obama’s pretty mug against him.) Thus the portrayal of him as precious, self-infatuated, and effete: "Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand ‘MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew—Black Forest Berry Honest Tea’ and worry about the price of arugula," wrote campaign manager Rick Davis in an e-mail announcing "Celeb." And thus the emphasis on Obama’s rock-star persona, designed to engender envy and contempt among the swath of Middle America for which hipness is no virtue but a sign of pretension.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
July 29, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MARCH OF STUPIDITY
I remember a quote from an Isaac Asimov novel: "Against stupidity even the gods themselves must contend." The gods would be very disappointed in the contemporary United States. It seems sometimes that stupidity is an epidemic. It's not just the abuse of the English language. It's the absolute inability to relate the past to the present, to separate the absolute nonsense we get from so many pundits and politicians from reality, or the taste in television shows that almost make stupidity a virtue. This article by Leonard Pitts Jr. is at www.commondreams.org:
I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we’re all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.
No, I’m talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference. When a CNN anchor drew Rinehart’s attention to his spelling errors, his reply was, ”I don’t necessarily care.” This is, I feel constrained to remind you, the elected representative of 220,000 people.
For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ”keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.
TOBY KEITH AND LYNCHING
In right-wing mythology you can get rich in this country if you have talent and work hard. I have a two word answer to rebut that: Toby Keith. I love country music, but I loathe Toby Keith and other fakes who pose as country music artists. Keith's talent is sparse, at best, but what is worse is that the hate message he consistently puts out in what he calls "music." Now Keith is putting lynching to a beat. This article by Max Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Those who doubt the presence of racist undertones in Keith's "Beer For My Horses" should see the song's video. (The embed link to the video's Youtube version was disabled by Keith's record label so you have to click here to watch it). Cue ahead to 3:00 and watch as Keith intones, "We got too many gangsters doin' dirty deeds." The singer's words are not-so-subtly accompanied by the image of a swaggering black man sporting short dreads and baggy clothes. Thus the profile of Keith's ideal lynching candidate is revealed.
Keith's whirlwind publicity tour continues on July 30 with his appearance on CBS's Early Show, then sit-down interviews with Esquire Magazine and Us Weekly. The following week, Jay Leno will play host to another raucous rendition of "Beer For My Horses." Thanks to Keith and his unsuspecting hosts, lynching is becoming cool again.
_______
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MARCH OF STUPIDITY
I remember a quote from an Isaac Asimov novel: "Against stupidity even the gods themselves must contend." The gods would be very disappointed in the contemporary United States. It seems sometimes that stupidity is an epidemic. It's not just the abuse of the English language. It's the absolute inability to relate the past to the present, to separate the absolute nonsense we get from so many pundits and politicians from reality, or the taste in television shows that almost make stupidity a virtue. This article by Leonard Pitts Jr. is at www.commondreams.org:
I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we’re all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.
No, I’m talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference. When a CNN anchor drew Rinehart’s attention to his spelling errors, his reply was, ”I don’t necessarily care.” This is, I feel constrained to remind you, the elected representative of 220,000 people.
For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ”keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.
TOBY KEITH AND LYNCHING
In right-wing mythology you can get rich in this country if you have talent and work hard. I have a two word answer to rebut that: Toby Keith. I love country music, but I loathe Toby Keith and other fakes who pose as country music artists. Keith's talent is sparse, at best, but what is worse is that the hate message he consistently puts out in what he calls "music." Now Keith is putting lynching to a beat. This article by Max Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Those who doubt the presence of racist undertones in Keith's "Beer For My Horses" should see the song's video. (The embed link to the video's Youtube version was disabled by Keith's record label so you have to click here to watch it). Cue ahead to 3:00 and watch as Keith intones, "We got too many gangsters doin' dirty deeds." The singer's words are not-so-subtly accompanied by the image of a swaggering black man sporting short dreads and baggy clothes. Thus the profile of Keith's ideal lynching candidate is revealed.
Keith's whirlwind publicity tour continues on July 30 with his appearance on CBS's Early Show, then sit-down interviews with Esquire Magazine and Us Weekly. The following week, Jay Leno will play host to another raucous rendition of "Beer For My Horses." Thanks to Keith and his unsuspecting hosts, lynching is becoming cool again.
_______
Monday, July 28, 2008
July 28, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RELIGION RACKET
I don't understand why people turn off their reasoning ability when they are involved with religion. It must be a strong desire to believe in magic. "Intelligent design" theorists try to put an intellectual gloss on religion, but it doesn't stand up. A belief that has been around a long time, but is even more prominent now, is "prosperity" theology. The snake oil salesmen will tell you that God wants you to be rich. Just pray enough, believe enough, and tithe enough and you too will be rich. Conversely, if you're poor, it must mean that God doesn't favor you. This article by Meg White is at http://www.buzzflash.com/:
There are two things that just shouldn't mix with religion: politics and money. But with President George W. Bush's reliance upon the evangelical Christian vote to get elected and some pastors' promises to believers that worshiping and giving to the church will bring them personal wealth, there's no shortage of examples of people who benefit greatly by combining twisted views of God and economics.
The Bible doesn't seem to square with either the evangelical notion of "prosperity theology" or Republican economic theory. Jesus tells his followers to give everything to the needy. He also says that we should pay our taxes, rendering unto Caesar (i.e., the government) what is his.
What would Jesus do? Well, none of us can say for sure, but I have a feeling he wouldn't advocate slashing social services for the poor and cutting taxes for the wealthy. And as much as he advocated helping the downtrodden, he wasn't passing around the collection plate himself.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RELIGION RACKET
I don't understand why people turn off their reasoning ability when they are involved with religion. It must be a strong desire to believe in magic. "Intelligent design" theorists try to put an intellectual gloss on religion, but it doesn't stand up. A belief that has been around a long time, but is even more prominent now, is "prosperity" theology. The snake oil salesmen will tell you that God wants you to be rich. Just pray enough, believe enough, and tithe enough and you too will be rich. Conversely, if you're poor, it must mean that God doesn't favor you. This article by Meg White is at http://www.buzzflash.com/:
There are two things that just shouldn't mix with religion: politics and money. But with President George W. Bush's reliance upon the evangelical Christian vote to get elected and some pastors' promises to believers that worshiping and giving to the church will bring them personal wealth, there's no shortage of examples of people who benefit greatly by combining twisted views of God and economics.
The Bible doesn't seem to square with either the evangelical notion of "prosperity theology" or Republican economic theory. Jesus tells his followers to give everything to the needy. He also says that we should pay our taxes, rendering unto Caesar (i.e., the government) what is his.
What would Jesus do? Well, none of us can say for sure, but I have a feeling he wouldn't advocate slashing social services for the poor and cutting taxes for the wealthy. And as much as he advocated helping the downtrodden, he wasn't passing around the collection plate himself.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
July 22, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE PROBLEM, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY
A few months ago I had an "interview" with a guy representing the World Financial Group. They sell investment plans that are supposed to give you a good retirement fund. Somewhere along the way, of course, there was an attack on Social Security. According to the propaganda, we of the Baby Boom generation will bankrupt Social Security, or put an insufferable burden on younger workers who pay into the system. When you examine all the data you see that the claims are nonsense. Social Security is one of the best programs ever devised by the federal government and the only source of survival for many people. This article by economist Dean Baker looks at a right-wing ideologue named Peter Peterson who would like to destroy Social Security. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Peterson has not been shy about using slippery logic to advance his agenda. For example, back in the 90’s he argued for cutting the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, which is tied to the consumer price index (CPI), based on the claim that the CPI substantially overstates the true rate of inflation. If Peterson’s claim about a CPI overstatement were true, then it would imply that incomes are rising far more rapidly than our projections show. Peterson’s CPI adjustment would mean that our children and grandchildren will be far richer than we could possibly imagine, because incomes are rising so rapidly. Similarly, the retirees for whom he wanted to cut benefits actually spent much of their lives in poverty. If incomes have been rising more rapidly than the official data show, then we must have been far poorer in the past than the data show.
In the same vein, Peterson supported the partial privatization of Social Security, based on assumptions on stock returns that were inconsistent with the profit growth projections of the Social Security trustees, and the price-to-earnings ratios that existed in the stock market at the time. In the push to cut Social Security and Medicare, Peterson does not feel the need to be bound by the truths of logic and arithmetic.
There is a fundamental point on which Peterson is correct. The long-term budget projections do show a horror story of enormous deficits. But these projections are not driven by aging and overly generous retirement programs. They are driven by projections that our private health care system, which already costs twice as much per person as the average for other rich countries, will get ever more inefficient through time. If we never fix our health care system, then we will face an economic disaster, which will include serious budget problems, since half of our health care is paid for through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
This reality would suggest the importance of reforming the health care system. Health care reform would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the doctors’ lobbies. These groups have serious power. That’s why Mr. Peterson prefers to stick with granny bashing.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE PROBLEM, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY
A few months ago I had an "interview" with a guy representing the World Financial Group. They sell investment plans that are supposed to give you a good retirement fund. Somewhere along the way, of course, there was an attack on Social Security. According to the propaganda, we of the Baby Boom generation will bankrupt Social Security, or put an insufferable burden on younger workers who pay into the system. When you examine all the data you see that the claims are nonsense. Social Security is one of the best programs ever devised by the federal government and the only source of survival for many people. This article by economist Dean Baker looks at a right-wing ideologue named Peter Peterson who would like to destroy Social Security. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Peterson has not been shy about using slippery logic to advance his agenda. For example, back in the 90’s he argued for cutting the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, which is tied to the consumer price index (CPI), based on the claim that the CPI substantially overstates the true rate of inflation. If Peterson’s claim about a CPI overstatement were true, then it would imply that incomes are rising far more rapidly than our projections show. Peterson’s CPI adjustment would mean that our children and grandchildren will be far richer than we could possibly imagine, because incomes are rising so rapidly. Similarly, the retirees for whom he wanted to cut benefits actually spent much of their lives in poverty. If incomes have been rising more rapidly than the official data show, then we must have been far poorer in the past than the data show.
In the same vein, Peterson supported the partial privatization of Social Security, based on assumptions on stock returns that were inconsistent with the profit growth projections of the Social Security trustees, and the price-to-earnings ratios that existed in the stock market at the time. In the push to cut Social Security and Medicare, Peterson does not feel the need to be bound by the truths of logic and arithmetic.
There is a fundamental point on which Peterson is correct. The long-term budget projections do show a horror story of enormous deficits. But these projections are not driven by aging and overly generous retirement programs. They are driven by projections that our private health care system, which already costs twice as much per person as the average for other rich countries, will get ever more inefficient through time. If we never fix our health care system, then we will face an economic disaster, which will include serious budget problems, since half of our health care is paid for through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
This reality would suggest the importance of reforming the health care system. Health care reform would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the doctors’ lobbies. These groups have serious power. That’s why Mr. Peterson prefers to stick with granny bashing.
Monday, July 21, 2008
July 21, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
JUST WHAT ARE MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATIONS AGAIN?
John McCain has been in the Senate a long time. If you used that as a qualification for anything, then certain types of fungi would be qualified to be president. He got shot down in Vietnam and was a POW. How does that remotely qualify him for the presidency? Every time he opens his mouth McCain just proves we shouldn't let him anywhere near the Oval Office. In this column Frank Rich looks at the McCain campaign. The column is at www.nytimes.com:
Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated by whining about "a nation of whiners." The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings , no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.
Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s "mental recession," Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as "almost certainly" the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was "probably the most exploited worker in American history" since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the "billions" he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
JUST WHAT ARE MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATIONS AGAIN?
John McCain has been in the Senate a long time. If you used that as a qualification for anything, then certain types of fungi would be qualified to be president. He got shot down in Vietnam and was a POW. How does that remotely qualify him for the presidency? Every time he opens his mouth McCain just proves we shouldn't let him anywhere near the Oval Office. In this column Frank Rich looks at the McCain campaign. The column is at www.nytimes.com:
Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated by whining about "a nation of whiners." The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings , no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.
Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s "mental recession," Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as "almost certainly" the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was "probably the most exploited worker in American history" since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the "billions" he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.
Friday, July 18, 2008
July 17, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE STRATEGY OF CAPTURED AGENCIES
Conservatives love to fulminate against "big government." But they have no problem with government that acts as a tool for their friends. For instance, you appoint people who are anti-environment to head up agencies charged with enforcing environmental regulations. Or you put a corporate lackey like Elaine Chao in charge of the Labor Department. The agency has dragged its feet repeatedly during Bush's term in investigating abuses against working people. This editorial is from The New York Times at www.nytimes.com:
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE STRATEGY OF CAPTURED AGENCIES
Conservatives love to fulminate against "big government." But they have no problem with government that acts as a tool for their friends. For instance, you appoint people who are anti-environment to head up agencies charged with enforcing environmental regulations. Or you put a corporate lackey like Elaine Chao in charge of the Labor Department. The agency has dragged its feet repeatedly during Bush's term in investigating abuses against working people. This editorial is from The New York Times at www.nytimes.com:
President Bush has filled top posts across his administration with people who do not agree with the missions of their organizations. His Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect the environment; his Justice Department has promoted injustice.
To lead the Department of Labor, Mr. Bush appointed Elaine Chao, who took office in 2001 arguing that states should be able to opt out of the federal minimum wage — a terrible idea that would drive down wages for the lowest-paid employees. For more than seven years, Ms. Chao has run a department that has tilted toward employers and failed to properly enforce labor laws.
"RANDOM" JURY SERVICE
Today I got my fourth jury summons from Fresno County in just eight years. Fresno County has a fairly sizable population. Granted, some of those people wouldn't be eligible for jury service due to age, physical handicaps, being too young, etc. But this is still astonishing, especially since most people I know have never gotten a jury summons.
I know we're supposed to feel "privileged" by jury service. I wonder, then, why you get threatened with jail if you don't follow their orders. Some privilege. I wonder why juries will slave away on lawsuits, only to have some elitist judge reduce or throw out the judgment. We saw that recently in a case involving a female basketball coach who sued California State University, Fresno, for sexual discrimination. And I wonder why employers are not required to pay your salary when you get shanghaied into jury service. You're magically supposed to make it on $15.00 a day.
This is just another example of why Fresno County wouldn't my first choice of places to live.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
July 17, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE INEQUALITY GAP
When George W. Bush sauntered off the stage at the latest summit he arrogantly crowed, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." The United States is number one in too many bad categories. We do lead the world in contributing to greenhouse gases. We lead the world in military expenditures. We have an astonishing infant mortality rate for such a rich country. We rate well down the list for life expectancy, especially for African-Americans. There is something very wrong here. You can attribute much of it to our rotten free market economic system. This article by Leonard Doyle is at http://www.commondreams.org/:
The United States of America is becoming less united by the day. A 30-year gap now exists in the average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England. Huge disparities have also opened up in income, health and education depending on where people live in the US, according to a report published yesterday.
The American Human Development Index has applied to the US an aid agency approach to measuring well-being - more familiar to observers of the Third World - with shocking results. The US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in survival of infants to age. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death and although the US is home to just 5 per cent of the global population it accounts for 24 per cent of the world’s prisoners.
Despite an almost cult-like devotion to the belief that unfettered free enterprise is the best way to lift Americans out of poverty, the report points to a rigged system that does little to lessen inequalities.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE INEQUALITY GAP
When George W. Bush sauntered off the stage at the latest summit he arrogantly crowed, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." The United States is number one in too many bad categories. We do lead the world in contributing to greenhouse gases. We lead the world in military expenditures. We have an astonishing infant mortality rate for such a rich country. We rate well down the list for life expectancy, especially for African-Americans. There is something very wrong here. You can attribute much of it to our rotten free market economic system. This article by Leonard Doyle is at http://www.commondreams.org/:
The United States of America is becoming less united by the day. A 30-year gap now exists in the average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England. Huge disparities have also opened up in income, health and education depending on where people live in the US, according to a report published yesterday.
The American Human Development Index has applied to the US an aid agency approach to measuring well-being - more familiar to observers of the Third World - with shocking results. The US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in survival of infants to age. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death and although the US is home to just 5 per cent of the global population it accounts for 24 per cent of the world’s prisoners.
Despite an almost cult-like devotion to the belief that unfettered free enterprise is the best way to lift Americans out of poverty, the report points to a rigged system that does little to lessen inequalities.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
July 16, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
FREE MARKET ONLY WORKS FOR SOME
Right-wingers idolize the "free market." To hear them speak, you would think we lived in a virtual Garden of Eden before there was regulation of markets. Read a little history and you find out differently, of course, but history and reading are not trademarks of right-wing "thought." You really only have to go back to the Great Depression to see what a miserable failure free markets are. It took the interventions and innovations of the New Deal to save the United States economy. Right-wingers would rather spit about "socialism" than look at the real world. We're seeing the poison fruit of free market orthodoxy now: the bank crisis, the home mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, rocketing gasoline and food costs, and the incestuous relationship between big corporations and the federal government. This column by Peter G. Gosselin is at www.latimes.com:
Spurred by the continued housing crisis, turmoil in financial markets, spiking oil prices, disappearing jobs and shrinking retirement savings, the nation and its political leaders have begun to sour on the notion that the current market system is the key to a fair, stable and efficient society.
"We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has been thrown very much into question."
Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy.
REGULATION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
Imagine, if you will, driving your car on roads and freeways with no rules. Everyone would do what they wanted. It would be survival of the fittest. There would be no pesky rules about speed limits and merging and stopping at lights or signs. It would be horrifying. But that is essentially what right-wingers want in the economy. We're supposed to believe that big corporations will police themselves and that the "market' will make them toe the line. It's absolute nonsense. What's more, it's a prescription for disaster. This column by Cenk Uygur is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Complete deregulation is an intellectually indefensible position. It is also the current Republican platform. We have been trained, and yes even brainwashed, into believing that the government is a bad thing and the less you have of it, the better. That is until of course your house is burning down, then all of a sudden government help -- in the form of the fire department -- seems like a pretty good idea.
The reason we have government is because it serves a role that we need in society. Police, fire department, public education, common defense and financial regulation of the markets. If you don't have a check on insider trading, the rich get richer and the average guy gets screwed. So, you need the cops of Wall Street. But this isn't just the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is every regulatory agency that watches over the financial industry to protect the interests of all of us.
Even Adam Smith realized the need for government regulation. And it is a perverse situation we find ourselves in that I even have to make the case for such fundamental and obvious points. But yet, here is the campaign for one of the major party candidates for president hiring as their top economic adviser the man who embodies this bloodlust for limitless deregulation. This is probably the one person who best represents all that is wrong with radical deregulation. His name is Phil Gramm.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
FREE MARKET ONLY WORKS FOR SOME
Right-wingers idolize the "free market." To hear them speak, you would think we lived in a virtual Garden of Eden before there was regulation of markets. Read a little history and you find out differently, of course, but history and reading are not trademarks of right-wing "thought." You really only have to go back to the Great Depression to see what a miserable failure free markets are. It took the interventions and innovations of the New Deal to save the United States economy. Right-wingers would rather spit about "socialism" than look at the real world. We're seeing the poison fruit of free market orthodoxy now: the bank crisis, the home mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, rocketing gasoline and food costs, and the incestuous relationship between big corporations and the federal government. This column by Peter G. Gosselin is at www.latimes.com:
Spurred by the continued housing crisis, turmoil in financial markets, spiking oil prices, disappearing jobs and shrinking retirement savings, the nation and its political leaders have begun to sour on the notion that the current market system is the key to a fair, stable and efficient society.
"We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has been thrown very much into question."
Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy.
REGULATION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
Imagine, if you will, driving your car on roads and freeways with no rules. Everyone would do what they wanted. It would be survival of the fittest. There would be no pesky rules about speed limits and merging and stopping at lights or signs. It would be horrifying. But that is essentially what right-wingers want in the economy. We're supposed to believe that big corporations will police themselves and that the "market' will make them toe the line. It's absolute nonsense. What's more, it's a prescription for disaster. This column by Cenk Uygur is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Complete deregulation is an intellectually indefensible position. It is also the current Republican platform. We have been trained, and yes even brainwashed, into believing that the government is a bad thing and the less you have of it, the better. That is until of course your house is burning down, then all of a sudden government help -- in the form of the fire department -- seems like a pretty good idea.
The reason we have government is because it serves a role that we need in society. Police, fire department, public education, common defense and financial regulation of the markets. If you don't have a check on insider trading, the rich get richer and the average guy gets screwed. So, you need the cops of Wall Street. But this isn't just the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is every regulatory agency that watches over the financial industry to protect the interests of all of us.
Even Adam Smith realized the need for government regulation. And it is a perverse situation we find ourselves in that I even have to make the case for such fundamental and obvious points. But yet, here is the campaign for one of the major party candidates for president hiring as their top economic adviser the man who embodies this bloodlust for limitless deregulation. This is probably the one person who best represents all that is wrong with radical deregulation. His name is Phil Gramm.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
July 13, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SEE HOW THEY WHINE
Today's Fresno Bee letters section had yet another whiny, poor pitiful me letter from a right-winger who thinks the country should be partitioned by county. He claims, without any sourcing, of course, that Bush won over 2,000 counties in the 2000 election, whereas Al Gore allegedly won 600 counties or so. Of course, Al Gore actually won more votes. The counties that supported Bush are mostly inhabited by prairie dogs and tumbleweeds.
The right-wing meme of late is that they are just terribly put upon. They can't practice their "Christian" beliefs. The gays are coming and abortion is legal, oh my! Heaven forbid they should pay any taxes that might possibly benefit someone else, especially if the someone else is disadvantaged somehow. How does that jibe with the basic tenet of Christianity called the Golden Rule? Oh, never mind.
The world would be a far better place without the selfish, me first, ignorant and bigoted philosophy called conservatism.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SEE HOW THEY WHINE
Today's Fresno Bee letters section had yet another whiny, poor pitiful me letter from a right-winger who thinks the country should be partitioned by county. He claims, without any sourcing, of course, that Bush won over 2,000 counties in the 2000 election, whereas Al Gore allegedly won 600 counties or so. Of course, Al Gore actually won more votes. The counties that supported Bush are mostly inhabited by prairie dogs and tumbleweeds.
The right-wing meme of late is that they are just terribly put upon. They can't practice their "Christian" beliefs. The gays are coming and abortion is legal, oh my! Heaven forbid they should pay any taxes that might possibly benefit someone else, especially if the someone else is disadvantaged somehow. How does that jibe with the basic tenet of Christianity called the Golden Rule? Oh, never mind.
The world would be a far better place without the selfish, me first, ignorant and bigoted philosophy called conservatism.
Friday, July 11, 2008
July 10, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ANOTHER RIGHT WING HISSY FIT
Yesterday I read a letter in The Fresno Bee by another anal-retentive right-winger upset that anyone would suggest banning fireworks. As anyone around here knows, fires have been blazing throughout California. The smoke from those fires has made bad air even worse. For people with asthma and other respiratory ailments, it has to be sheer misery.
You can always tell the prototypical nut job right-winger because they manage to slip in the word "liberal" somewhere and go on a rant about liberals denying them their freedoms. According to Mr. Brilliant, we want to ban guns and ban drilling and ban nuclear power plants and, now, even ban fireworks. Oh, the humanity!
If this guy represents right-wingers, I guess we can believe that right-wingers like dirty air, people getting slaughtered by guns, the oceans getting filled with toxic oil and other wastes from drilling, the despoliation of ANWR for oil that won't help us much at all, and nuclear plants, which are really like nuclear bombs ready to explode, in our very own neighborhoods. What visionaries they are!
On the other hand, they have no problem with interfering in people's personal lives, ripping up civil liberties, bankrupting the government, and starting immoral wars.
THE WORKING CLASS DESERVES A BREAK
A trend I've noticed over the past several years is that employers want you to possess world class skills, but they don't want to pay even decent wages and benefits. No matter how hard or well you work it's never quite enough. They find excuses to deny raises, take away benefits, or even outsource jobs. In the meantime, the richest people in the country are rolling in money. They whine about government regulation or about taxes while they live like kings. This commentary by Steven Greenhouse is at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com:
In talking with workers--be they software engineers or hotel housekeepers, factory workers or freelancers--I often sensed a frustration, even an anger, that unfairness has muscled aside fairness in America in recent decades and especially in recent years, and it goes far beyond stratospheric C.E.O. salaries. Many workers are upset that their families have been sinking economically--median income for working-age households fell $2,375 from 2000 to 2006 (after accounting for inflation). For the typical worker, wages have inched up less than 1 percent since the most recent economic expansion began in November 2001, even as corporate profits have soared and productivity per worker has jumped more than 15 percent. And there's also widespread resentment that while middle-class and low-wage workers have been treading water, average income for the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, has more than tripled over the past quarter century. The top 1 percent of household has more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And I hardly need to point out that for the great majority of workers, the pain has grown only worse in recent months as fuel prices, food prices and foreclosures have soared.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ANOTHER RIGHT WING HISSY FIT
Yesterday I read a letter in The Fresno Bee by another anal-retentive right-winger upset that anyone would suggest banning fireworks. As anyone around here knows, fires have been blazing throughout California. The smoke from those fires has made bad air even worse. For people with asthma and other respiratory ailments, it has to be sheer misery.
You can always tell the prototypical nut job right-winger because they manage to slip in the word "liberal" somewhere and go on a rant about liberals denying them their freedoms. According to Mr. Brilliant, we want to ban guns and ban drilling and ban nuclear power plants and, now, even ban fireworks. Oh, the humanity!
If this guy represents right-wingers, I guess we can believe that right-wingers like dirty air, people getting slaughtered by guns, the oceans getting filled with toxic oil and other wastes from drilling, the despoliation of ANWR for oil that won't help us much at all, and nuclear plants, which are really like nuclear bombs ready to explode, in our very own neighborhoods. What visionaries they are!
On the other hand, they have no problem with interfering in people's personal lives, ripping up civil liberties, bankrupting the government, and starting immoral wars.
THE WORKING CLASS DESERVES A BREAK
A trend I've noticed over the past several years is that employers want you to possess world class skills, but they don't want to pay even decent wages and benefits. No matter how hard or well you work it's never quite enough. They find excuses to deny raises, take away benefits, or even outsource jobs. In the meantime, the richest people in the country are rolling in money. They whine about government regulation or about taxes while they live like kings. This commentary by Steven Greenhouse is at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com:
In talking with workers--be they software engineers or hotel housekeepers, factory workers or freelancers--I often sensed a frustration, even an anger, that unfairness has muscled aside fairness in America in recent decades and especially in recent years, and it goes far beyond stratospheric C.E.O. salaries. Many workers are upset that their families have been sinking economically--median income for working-age households fell $2,375 from 2000 to 2006 (after accounting for inflation). For the typical worker, wages have inched up less than 1 percent since the most recent economic expansion began in November 2001, even as corporate profits have soared and productivity per worker has jumped more than 15 percent. And there's also widespread resentment that while middle-class and low-wage workers have been treading water, average income for the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, has more than tripled over the past quarter century. The top 1 percent of household has more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And I hardly need to point out that for the great majority of workers, the pain has grown only worse in recent months as fuel prices, food prices and foreclosures have soared.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
July 08, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CARTER WAS RIGHT ABOUT ENERGY
It became popular in right-wing circles to suggest that the Carter administration was a massive failure and it took the "savior" Ronald Reagan to restore us to greatness. I know that I did better economically during the Carter administration. Reagan's supposed great economy wasn't all that great. One area where Jimmy Carter stands out is his vision about energy policy. The United States experienced its first oil shock in the 1970's. It should have been a wakeup call, but Ronald Reagan and right-wingers never liked to face a reality that means inconvenience or sacrifice. This article by Stephen Pizzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Have you forgotten what real leadership and real straight talk look and sound like? No wonder.
Well here's a refreshing refresher course. Back in 1977 the much maligned, President Jimmy Carter, showed genuine leadership and political courage, two traits almost entirely missing from today's "leaders." Following the Arab oil boycott of 1973, Carter took a cold, hard look at world oil supplies and declared them a national security threat just waiting to happen. He laid out a vision of what must be done, and done quickly to avoid just such a threat to America's robust, but excessive, lifestyle. Carter, as was his wonkish wont, laid out both his vision and his solutions in painstaking detail in a prime-time television address.
It was filled with hard truths and bitter pills, neither of which pampered Americans had (and still have) no use for and conservatives scorn as "defeatism" and "surrender." On a ship of fools it's always "full speed ahead -- and stop with the iceberg business! Yahooooooo."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CARTER WAS RIGHT ABOUT ENERGY
It became popular in right-wing circles to suggest that the Carter administration was a massive failure and it took the "savior" Ronald Reagan to restore us to greatness. I know that I did better economically during the Carter administration. Reagan's supposed great economy wasn't all that great. One area where Jimmy Carter stands out is his vision about energy policy. The United States experienced its first oil shock in the 1970's. It should have been a wakeup call, but Ronald Reagan and right-wingers never liked to face a reality that means inconvenience or sacrifice. This article by Stephen Pizzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Have you forgotten what real leadership and real straight talk look and sound like? No wonder.
Well here's a refreshing refresher course. Back in 1977 the much maligned, President Jimmy Carter, showed genuine leadership and political courage, two traits almost entirely missing from today's "leaders." Following the Arab oil boycott of 1973, Carter took a cold, hard look at world oil supplies and declared them a national security threat just waiting to happen. He laid out a vision of what must be done, and done quickly to avoid just such a threat to America's robust, but excessive, lifestyle. Carter, as was his wonkish wont, laid out both his vision and his solutions in painstaking detail in a prime-time television address.
It was filled with hard truths and bitter pills, neither of which pampered Americans had (and still have) no use for and conservatives scorn as "defeatism" and "surrender." On a ship of fools it's always "full speed ahead -- and stop with the iceberg business! Yahooooooo."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)