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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

November 17, 2008


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY


GOOD RIDDANCE


After he resigned the presidency in disgrace Richard M. Nixon began a process of remaking himself into an elder statesman. I'm not sure Nixon ever succeeded. He was a vile, crooked man, and all the spin in the world couldn't change that. But we can probably expect a similar effort to rehabilitate the reputation of George W. Bush. Compared to Bush, Richard Nixon was a saint. Bush has taken arrogance and corruption and bloodlust to a whole new level. This article by Paul Waldman is at www.truthout.org:

This presidency is finally over. We can say goodbye to an administration whose misdeeds have piled so high that the size of the mountain no longer shocks us. In our lifetimes, we will see administrations of varying degrees of competence and integrity, some we'll agree with and some we won't. But we will probably never see another quite like the one now finally reaching its end, so mind-boggling a parade of incompetence and malice, dishonesty, and immorality. So at last - at long, long last - we can say goodbye.

And good riddance.

November 12, 2008


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY


HISTORY OF TAX CUTS ISN'T PRETTY


Every election season right-wing politicians, the gasbags on talk radio, and right-wingers everywhere proclaim the virtues of tax cuts, especially for the rich. According to them, tax cuts for the rich lead to investment, jobs, and prosperity for all. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich do very well. The rest of us face financial upheaval. This article by Larry Beinhart is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Even now, in the midst of the Bush disaster, I constantly see and hear tax cuts, particularly at the top, described as "pro-growth." So I went and looked at the numbers -- tax rates, tax cuts and tax hikes -- and placed them alongside job growth, the Dow Jones, growth in the GDP and median income.


The brute facts say the opposite of the myth.


The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.


How do we distinguish a theological idea from a scientific (or rational) one?
According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way, which would then say the theory is wrong.


On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way; you could make up some story that said your theory was still right.

November 08, 2008


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY


RANDOM THOUGHTS


I briefly perused the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One letter writer was worried about "socialism" from Barack Obama. It shows how effective propaganda really is. The fact is that some socialism is really pretty good for most of us. I think it's good that we have things like unemployment insurance and Social Security. I hope that national health insurance will come to pass during Obama's administration.


Another letter writer tried to find a link between Obama talking about the needs of "main street" and a fall in the stock market the next day. I would point out that the stock market has consistently fallen in the past few weeks before Barack Obama was elected president. Another stock market fall was probably due to a report of the highest unemployment figures in fourteen years. The toxic effects of the Bush administration will be with us for some time. I think Barack Obama will make a huge and positive difference, but he can't fix so much damage instantly.

November 05, 2008


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

TOWARD A NEW POLITICS

I was cautiously optimistic as I saw Barack Obama take a lead in the major polls. There was always that nagging feeling that the Republicans would find a way to steal yet another election in the same way they stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. But Obama had too much of a lead. Too many of us were watching this time. The Internet has added a whole new dimension to politics. Some of it, such as the hateful smearing emails you get, are reprehensible. For the most part, though, the Internet is our way to participate in a national and international forum. Barack Obama represents not only the election of the first African-American president, but the beginning of a new era. We desperately need a 21st version of the New Deal. Working class people need to be represented again. This column by Mark Weisbrot is at www.commondreams.org:

For now, though, the domestic economy will occupy center stage as the new government faces the worst recession in decades, and one that is just beginning -- the housing bubble that caused this recession is only about 60 percent deflated. The people have voted for change, including expanded health care coverage and -- as they did in 2006 -- an end to the Iraq war. How much change we will actually see will depend more than anything on how much pressure there is from below.

But there is plenty to celebrate in addition to the election of our first African-American president. Forty years is a long time for a country to be on the wrong track, and even worse for one that has so much influence on the rest of the world. We now have an opportunity to resume the economic and social progress that was considered almost inevitable a few decades ago, and to address some of the most urgent environmental problems -- most importantly climate change -- which have only recently become widely recognized. Who knows, we might even stop invading other countries and move towards becoming a law-abiding member of the international community. Progress is now at least possible, although it will still be an uphill fight. As Obama himself said in his acceptance speech, "This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change."

October 31, 2008


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY


RIGHT-WING AUTHORITARIANS


If conservatives could run things they really wanted, we'd be living in a coast-to-coast prison because conservatives are authoritarians to the core. They talk a good deal about "freedom," but it's only freedom for business. Conservatives want to tell us what we can read, what we can watch, what our sexual orientation will be, that women have no reproductive rights whatever, what drugs we can take to change our consciousness, and even that we can't have physician-assisted suicide if we're in agony and have a terminal illness. This commentary by John Dean is at www.commondreams.org:

Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.

Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which it to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.

Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however -- and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.