There is a new campaign ad viewable at The Official Re-election Site for President George W. Bush that you will not BELIEVE! (Click the big, green "Watch!" button.)
It's called The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party and it shows people like Al Gore, Howard Dean, Al Gephardt and John Kerry morphing into HITLER! It starts with Gore in a speech, morphing into Hitler, with a crowd shouting "Seig Heil!". It goes on like that. YOU WON'T BELIEVE IT! Go watch before they pull it down!!!
6/26/2004
6/25/2004
The Fear
Here's the transcript of Bush's Feb. 8, 2003 radio address:
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Powell briefed the United Nations Security Council on Iraq's illegal weapons program, its attempts to hide those weapons, and its links to terrorist groups.And so it was off to war, glorious war. And, of course, the bonus that Bush would be a "war President" for the election.
The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour.
The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly, biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists. This effort of deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, Iraq's vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors.
The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.
The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. It has never accounted for thousands of bombs and shells capable of delivering chemical weapons. It is actively pursuing components for prohibited ballistic missiles. And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.
This is the situation as we find it -- 12 years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm and more than 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing away that chance.
Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator. The United States would welcome and support a new resolution making clear that the Security Council stands behinds its previous demands. Yet, resolutions mean little without resolve. And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, will take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime.
Thank you for listening.
END"
6/24/2004
John Quincy Adams and George Walker Bush
I saw the following quote in a fundraising pitch from The Independent Institute*:
"During this time, President Bush has become the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) NOT to have vetoed a SINGLE bill."
Information from the Office Clerk of the House confirms this statement(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html).
It is certainly an attention getting statistic... I don't rightly know what to make of it, other than it only re-emphasizes the exceptional nature of the Bush Presidency.
* Yes, I'm aware of where their money comes from, like everyone else on the right. At the same time, I have a lot more respect for truly libertarian institutions like this. These folks are generally a lot more coherent and consistent than their brethren... and they've been consistently and highly critical of the Bush's administration's policies re: the war in Iraq, civil liberties, and expansion of police power.
--Thomas Leavitt
"During this time, President Bush has become the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) NOT to have vetoed a SINGLE bill."
Information from the Office Clerk of the House confirms this statement(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html).
It is certainly an attention getting statistic... I don't rightly know what to make of it, other than it only re-emphasizes the exceptional nature of the Bush Presidency.
* Yes, I'm aware of where their money comes from, like everyone else on the right. At the same time, I have a lot more respect for truly libertarian institutions like this. These folks are generally a lot more coherent and consistent than their brethren... and they've been consistently and highly critical of the Bush's administration's policies re: the war in Iraq, civil liberties, and expansion of police power.
--Thomas Leavitt
Greens vs Dems
I posted a comment in the ongoing Greens vs Dems debate, and thought I would elevate it to a post. (I can do that. So can the other posters here, by the way.)
Changing the minds...
The Green's idea is that they are forcing the Democratic Party and the country back to the left. I agree that this needs to happen. In fact I used to BE a Green because I believed this strongly.
But if you study what has happened to America it is not the Republican PARTY that has moved the public -- and therefore the Democratic Party -- to the right, it is their network of well-funded think tanks and advocacy/communication organizations. By changing public attitudes, they can elect candidates that reflect the changes their efforts have brought.
Parties reflect the public. What is needed is not a change in the Democratic Party, but a means to change public attitudes, which would then change the candidates and parties. Parties don't tell the people what to think -- people's thinking tells the parties what to do. Parties respond to the voters. Change the people, then the Parties will change.
To accomplish this, we need to fund organizations that are able to reach the general public through marketing, and work to restore Progressive values of community, sharing, nurturing and democracy -- and counter the Right's propaganda. That's what the Right has been doing -- pounding the public with "free-market" and "linertarian" and "personal responsibility" messaging -- and we need to do it right back.
This is not the job of just a radio network, it requires a long-term effort with strategic funding designed to reach the long-term goals. It requires many organizations doing research into public attitudes and language and messaging, etc. That's what the Right does. They have over 500 organizations working on this, and they are well-funded.
As the public is moved back from the Right's constant ideological drumbeat, THEN the Democratic Party will respond.
Changing the minds...
The Green's idea is that they are forcing the Democratic Party and the country back to the left. I agree that this needs to happen. In fact I used to BE a Green because I believed this strongly.
But if you study what has happened to America it is not the Republican PARTY that has moved the public -- and therefore the Democratic Party -- to the right, it is their network of well-funded think tanks and advocacy/communication organizations. By changing public attitudes, they can elect candidates that reflect the changes their efforts have brought.
Parties reflect the public. What is needed is not a change in the Democratic Party, but a means to change public attitudes, which would then change the candidates and parties. Parties don't tell the people what to think -- people's thinking tells the parties what to do. Parties respond to the voters. Change the people, then the Parties will change.
To accomplish this, we need to fund organizations that are able to reach the general public through marketing, and work to restore Progressive values of community, sharing, nurturing and democracy -- and counter the Right's propaganda. That's what the Right has been doing -- pounding the public with "free-market" and "linertarian" and "personal responsibility" messaging -- and we need to do it right back.
This is not the job of just a radio network, it requires a long-term effort with strategic funding designed to reach the long-term goals. It requires many organizations doing research into public attitudes and language and messaging, etc. That's what the Right does. They have over 500 organizations working on this, and they are well-funded.
As the public is moved back from the Right's constant ideological drumbeat, THEN the Democratic Party will respond.
ANOTHER Fine Mess He's Gotten Us Into!
Three years ago North Korea did NOT have nukes. Bush insulted them and called them part of the "axis of evil" and then refused to negotiate with them, forcing them into a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. So here we are. Our military is completely tied up in Iraq, and North Korea is threatening to set off nuclear weapons.
N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapon:
This is a case where the "lesser of two evils" literally means not ending the world.
N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapon:
"WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea told the United States on Thursday that it would test a nuclear weapon unless Washington accepted Pyongyang's proposal for a freeze on its atomic program, a senior administration official said."It REALLY, REALLY matters who you vote for. REALLY.
This is a case where the "lesser of two evils" literally means not ending the world.
The Terrible Cost
"Price of war":
The Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus have released a study on the costs of the Iraq war. Here are the human costs as cited by the groups, but the report also includes security, economic and social costs.Who you vote for does make a difference. If not to you, it certainly did and does to those listed above.
Human costs for the U.S., Iraq and the world:
U.S. Military Deaths: Between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces were killed, including 835 U.S. military. Of the total, 693 were killed after President Bush declared the end of combat operations on May 1, 2003. Over 5,134 U.S. troops have been wounded since the war began, including 4,593 since May 1, 2003.
Contractor Deaths: Estimates range from 50 to 90 civilian contractors, missionaries, and civilian worker deaths. Of these, 36 were identified as Americans.
Journalist Deaths: Thirty international media workers have been killed in Iraq, including 21 since President Bush declared the end of combat operations. Eight of the dead worked for U.S. companies.
Iraqi Deaths and Injuries: As of June 16, 2004, between 9,436 and 11,317 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. During "major combat" operations, between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers and insurgents were killed.
Human Costs: While Americans make up the vast majority of military and contractor personnel in Iraq, other U.S.-allied "coalition" troops have suffered 116 war casualties in Iraq. In addition, the focus on Iraq has diverted international resources and attention away from humanitarian crises such as in Sudan.
Supreme Court Backs Cheney
The same Supreme Court that ruled that President Clinton basically had to go on television in his underwear (no attorney-client privilege, OK to proceed with private suit that supposedly wouldn't get in the way of running the country, etc.) ruled that courts can take more time deciding whether to make Cheney disclose who and what went on with his "secret energy task force."
One thing we know about the task force is that it involved maps of Iraq's oil fields even before 9/11. If we know that, and they still want the rest of it secret, what is it they want to keep the public from knowing?
One thing we know about the task force is that it involved maps of Iraq's oil fields even before 9/11. If we know that, and they still want the rest of it secret, what is it they want to keep the public from knowing?
Denial of Service Attack on my personal weblog.
It appears that someone has launched a denial of service attack on my personal weblog - the post at this URL: http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/blog/index.php?p=530, accounts for 150 out of the last 200 accesses, and 670 out of the last 1000 ... most of them from a small number of similar IP addresses. Given that the post is entitled "Nader endorses Camejo!", it doesn't seem unreasonable to draw the conclusion that someone angry about Nader's selection of Camejo as his VP is trying to exact their revenge. Which is amusing, given that I've already stated that if the race is close in California, Kerry is likely to get my vote... despite the fact that I run a web site entitled UnrepentantNaderVoter.com. Not to mention my rather ambiguous feelings about Nader's campaign, also previously stated. :)
Anyway, I've decided turn my personal blog off, for the moment, to prevent the rest of the server from getting hammered. Seems like the Republicans aren't the only types who believe in censorship. :/
--Thomas Leavitt
Anyway, I've decided turn my personal blog off, for the moment, to prevent the rest of the server from getting hammered. Seems like the Republicans aren't the only types who believe in censorship. :/
--Thomas Leavitt
6/23/2004
If I were the devil
I don't know why but my political/personal inbound emails run 4 out of 5 right wing, and often it's on its third or fourth generation of forwards. Half of these emails have longer headers than text. While I've stopped trying to respond to those where I just don't recognize any names (which is most because what few right wing friends and family I have remaining have long since learned I "REPLY ALL" my responses and dropped me from their email lists) in yesterday emails I received a special request from mom. Mom , ever the diplomat, has so far avoided being removed from family and friends GOP_chain ebombs but is finding it harder to ignore them. So mom, knowing my penchant for not keeping my mouth closed (sure, now it's handy . . .), forwarded me the latest and asks if I can help her formulate a response. Half hour later and I've whipped out a quick Fisking of a perennial favorite of Death Pools around the country; Paul Harvey. I sent it back and didn't give it any thought until I got word today that it's being printed up and passed around.
Our most gracious host, Dave, sent me a link months ago to guest post and told me "Whenever inspiration strikes . . ."
So, in the spirit of "It would be a shame to waste a good Fisking" I present for my opening post:
Paul Harvey, If I Were the Devil, Fisked
If I were the devil, I would gain control of the most powerful
nation in the world; I would delude their minds into thinking that they
had come from man's effort, instead of God's blessings;
This kind of simplistic logic suggests that man is the opposite of God, and the devil is the opposite of God, so therefore man (or in this case man's effort) is equal to the devil. If I were the devil I'm quite sure I would appreciate this kind of logic. I'm not sure who else would though. Of course there are many that would argue the devil has already gained "control of the most powerful nation in the world" through the person of George Bush, but I doubt that's what Paul had in mind with this statement.
I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people,
instead of the other way around;
If you were the devil what would you think of invading and occupying, at a cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives, a nation that was not a threat to the US, was not involved in recent attacks against our country and had in fact been a subsidized client state of the US only a decade ago? If I were the devil I'd love the oil and use our troops to steal it.
I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their
state revenue;
If I were the devil I would cut taxes (especially on those most able to afford them) until entire states bordered on bankruptcy. Then I'd cut vital public services including infrastructure, transportation, education, school nutrition programs (as the devil this would be one of my favorite cuts), police and fire protection. Can't very well ensue social chaos without cutting education, Police and fire.
I would convince people that character is not an issue when it
comes to leadership;
Considering the inexplicable level of support for Bush I think the devil has already won this one.
I would make it legal to kill unborn babies;
If I were the devil I would make it mandatory to torture semantics.
I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and
invent machines to make it convenient;
If I were the devil I would make it socially acceptable to prolong a person's un-treatable suffering and agony as long as possible, and invent machines to make it convenient.
I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life
of animals are valued more than human beings;
See both "mandatory to torture semantics" from above and "invading and occupying."
I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of
His name was grounds for a lawsuit;
If I was the devil I would insist that God be taught in the schools. Outside of the fact that I, the devil, couldn't exist without God, nothing brings out the absolute worst in people like instilling the belief that their God is the only correct God (as the devil I'm telling both sides this one, hee hee hee). Now couple this with cuts to education and law enforcement and I'd be one very happy devil.
I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the
young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;
Not that Jesus was a sports hero, but he did do a ton to help promote wine. If I were the devil I'd take credit for tobacco though.
I would get control of the media, so that every night I could
pollute the mind of every family member with my agenda;
If I were the devil I'd want royalties from Fox.
I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation.
Does this explain why the holiest are forbidden to marry and have families? If I were the devil it might make sense, but as it is it doesn't.
I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If
the family crumbles, so does the nation;
If I were the devil I'd forbid divorce. Misery loves company and oh how much company I'd have were that the case.
I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies
on canvas and movie screens, and call it art;
If I were the devil I would compel people to repress their most depraved fantasies and then, when they inevitably act out on them behind the scenes, have them repeatedly shuttled to new parishes to start over again (and again, and again), and call it rehabilitation. Or denial. The devil doesn't know the difference anyway.
I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and
that their lifestyles should be accepted;
If I were the devil I'd want to convince the world to be as intolerant as possible of others who are different. If I were the devil I'd be agreeing with what Paul Harvey really thinks on this one.
I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined
by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as
politically correct;
If I were the devil I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves exclusive spokesmen for God's word and refer to their agenda as Divine. Of course others may refer to it as an inquisition . . . or a Crusade.
I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of
date, and the Bible is for the naive;
If I were the devil I would persuade people that the Bible is just as relevant today as it was when it was written 2,000 years ago. Especially Leviticus. He'd be my favorite. Death for mixing your fibers, death for working on Sunday, death for talking back to your parents, tips on selling your daughters into slavery . . . what's a devil not to like? Anyone who doesn't believe that everything Leviticus espouses is the path to a richer, more fulfilling life is naive.
I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that
prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are
optional;
If I were the devil I would close the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer, faithfulness and obedience, to the exclusion of all other concerns, are the only things that matter. Much easier to work my magic* without free will messing things up.
* An example: "Look, over there! The devil is in that man. KILL HIM! Ohh now look over THERE! Another possessed by the devil. You must, for the sake of your saftey, kill them too." It's almost too easy.
Hmmm... I guess if I were the devil, I'd leave things pretty
much the way they are. Good day.
Hmmm . . . I guess if I were the devil I'd agree things are going my way, but not for the reasons Paul Harvey thinks.
Our most gracious host, Dave, sent me a link months ago to guest post and told me "Whenever inspiration strikes . . ."
So, in the spirit of "It would be a shame to waste a good Fisking" I present for my opening post:
Paul Harvey, If I Were the Devil, Fisked
If I were the devil, I would gain control of the most powerful
nation in the world; I would delude their minds into thinking that they
had come from man's effort, instead of God's blessings;
This kind of simplistic logic suggests that man is the opposite of God, and the devil is the opposite of God, so therefore man (or in this case man's effort) is equal to the devil. If I were the devil I'm quite sure I would appreciate this kind of logic. I'm not sure who else would though. Of course there are many that would argue the devil has already gained "control of the most powerful nation in the world" through the person of George Bush, but I doubt that's what Paul had in mind with this statement.
I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people,
instead of the other way around;
If you were the devil what would you think of invading and occupying, at a cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives, a nation that was not a threat to the US, was not involved in recent attacks against our country and had in fact been a subsidized client state of the US only a decade ago? If I were the devil I'd love the oil and use our troops to steal it.
I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their
state revenue;
If I were the devil I would cut taxes (especially on those most able to afford them) until entire states bordered on bankruptcy. Then I'd cut vital public services including infrastructure, transportation, education, school nutrition programs (as the devil this would be one of my favorite cuts), police and fire protection. Can't very well ensue social chaos without cutting education, Police and fire.
I would convince people that character is not an issue when it
comes to leadership;
Considering the inexplicable level of support for Bush I think the devil has already won this one.
I would make it legal to kill unborn babies;
If I were the devil I would make it mandatory to torture semantics.
I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and
invent machines to make it convenient;
If I were the devil I would make it socially acceptable to prolong a person's un-treatable suffering and agony as long as possible, and invent machines to make it convenient.
I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life
of animals are valued more than human beings;
See both "mandatory to torture semantics" from above and "invading and occupying."
I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of
His name was grounds for a lawsuit;
If I was the devil I would insist that God be taught in the schools. Outside of the fact that I, the devil, couldn't exist without God, nothing brings out the absolute worst in people like instilling the belief that their God is the only correct God (as the devil I'm telling both sides this one, hee hee hee). Now couple this with cuts to education and law enforcement and I'd be one very happy devil.
I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the
young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;
Not that Jesus was a sports hero, but he did do a ton to help promote wine. If I were the devil I'd take credit for tobacco though.
I would get control of the media, so that every night I could
pollute the mind of every family member with my agenda;
If I were the devil I'd want royalties from Fox.
I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation.
Does this explain why the holiest are forbidden to marry and have families? If I were the devil it might make sense, but as it is it doesn't.
I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If
the family crumbles, so does the nation;
If I were the devil I'd forbid divorce. Misery loves company and oh how much company I'd have were that the case.
I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies
on canvas and movie screens, and call it art;
If I were the devil I would compel people to repress their most depraved fantasies and then, when they inevitably act out on them behind the scenes, have them repeatedly shuttled to new parishes to start over again (and again, and again), and call it rehabilitation. Or denial. The devil doesn't know the difference anyway.
I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and
that their lifestyles should be accepted;
If I were the devil I'd want to convince the world to be as intolerant as possible of others who are different. If I were the devil I'd be agreeing with what Paul Harvey really thinks on this one.
I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined
by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as
politically correct;
If I were the devil I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves exclusive spokesmen for God's word and refer to their agenda as Divine. Of course others may refer to it as an inquisition . . . or a Crusade.
I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of
date, and the Bible is for the naive;
If I were the devil I would persuade people that the Bible is just as relevant today as it was when it was written 2,000 years ago. Especially Leviticus. He'd be my favorite. Death for mixing your fibers, death for working on Sunday, death for talking back to your parents, tips on selling your daughters into slavery . . . what's a devil not to like? Anyone who doesn't believe that everything Leviticus espouses is the path to a richer, more fulfilling life is naive.
I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that
prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are
optional;
If I were the devil I would close the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer, faithfulness and obedience, to the exclusion of all other concerns, are the only things that matter. Much easier to work my magic* without free will messing things up.
* An example: "Look, over there! The devil is in that man. KILL HIM! Ohh now look over THERE! Another possessed by the devil. You must, for the sake of your saftey, kill them too." It's almost too easy.
Hmmm... I guess if I were the devil, I'd leave things pretty
much the way they are. Good day.
Hmmm . . . I guess if I were the devil I'd agree things are going my way, but not for the reasons Paul Harvey thinks.
Rewriting History
I wrote about this the other day, but today Tony Blankley's column is out. Here's what he says:
Speaking of things happening on someone's "watch," what happened on George W Bush's watch?
"But it is that third point about failing to catch Bin Laden where Clinton probably, and correctly, realizes he is historically most vulnerable. Whether or not Clinton tried as hard as he could, the cruel, objective fact of history is that Bin Laden and his al Qaeda emerged on Clinton's watch. He failed to nip it in the bud, and it has now blossomed into a malignant worldwide danger. "Notice how he says "on Clinton's watch?" Actually, bin Laden and al-Queda "emerged" on Reagan and Bush I's watch -- and were funded and trained by them.
Speaking of things happening on someone's "watch," what happened on George W Bush's watch?
6/22/2004
Clinton the Most Progressive
Thomas posted some Green propaganda so I'll just ask one question. Can you name an issue where Clinton was not the most Progressive president we've had since FDR?
Update - Unless you have an absolutely perfect candidate, who agrees with every single position you have, 100% of the time, then aren't you voting for the "lesser evil" every time you vote, no matter who you vote for? In other words, "lesser evil" is just meaningless words, designed to sound good but actually confusing the real issues. You have to compromise, even if you vote for yourself.
Update - Unless you have an absolutely perfect candidate, who agrees with every single position you have, 100% of the time, then aren't you voting for the "lesser evil" every time you vote, no matter who you vote for? In other words, "lesser evil" is just meaningless words, designed to sound good but actually confusing the real issues. You have to compromise, even if you vote for yourself.
Nader's selection of Peter Camejo as VP
Nader has picked Peter Camejo, Mr. Avocado himself (an avocado is Green on the inside, and Green on the outside), as his running mate/VP. For those of you not in the know, Camejo ran as the Green Party of California's candidate for Governor in 2000 and 2002, earning respectable totals in both campaigns (over 5% in the 2000 race, and 200,000+ votes in both races). This is a political masterstroke (at least, if you look at it from the perspective of a Nader campaign supporter):
1. It (negatively) seals the fate of an independent Green Party candidacy by David Cobb. Faced with the double-whammy of a Nader/Camejo ticket, each of which draws upon a significant and not necessarily overlapping segment of the Green voter/activist population, it seems inconceivable that a Cobb campaign could gain any traction at all, even within the confines of the Green Party itself. Having Camejo running as the "Green" half of a Nader/Green "fusion" ticket* pretty much renders Cobbs' "Safe States" campaign pointless, and narrows even further a base already considerably shrunken by defections to the Nader campaign. A Cobb campaign would be a "rump" campaign in the most classic sense of the word, and I think most activists within the Green Party will recognize that and vote accordingly.
2. It renders whatever decision the Green Party makes in Milwaukee about endorsing Nader more or less irrelevant - with Camejo having delivered a big chunk of the Green grassroots to the Nader camp, all the convention can do is make it more or less difficult for Nader to obtain a few ballot lines. What will the convention decide? Who knows... my sense is that the momentum for a Nader endorsement is building, but at the same time, if Camejo's decision has finally put the last nail in the idea of an independent Green candidacy via David Cobb, as I think it has, it may very well result in a substantial number of the party's delegates opting to sit this one out, rather than putting the Green Party in the position of supporting and being a proxy for a candidate (or a pair of candidates) over which it has no control whatsoever.
Why Camejo?
1. There was a very strong "Draft Camejo" movement in the Green Party, folks who've been seeking to ensure that an authentically Green voice is heard this November, one that the media will have a hard time silencing. Camejo, even as the VP of a Nader ticket, fits that bill very well, and I think most of the Draft Camejo types will very willingly come on over to a Nader/Camejo ticket, regardless of whether the Green Party officially endorses it.
2. Camejo's always been a bit of a wildcard, willing to go his own way, regardless of whether or not the party establishment has bothered to line itself up behind him or not (such as when he plunged into the race for Governor of California during the recall election), and this fits. It also, as I point out above, pretty much seals off any potential for a strong campaign by a separate Green Party nominee.
* See: The Challenge of 2004: GREEN PARTY UNITY (from Peter Camejo) and Robert Caldwell's essay, For a Green-Nader Candidacy.
What do I think, personally? I don't know. I like Camejo, and I like Nader, but I'd like them both more if they were the official nominees of the Green Party itself, rather than independents making an end run around party process. I'm a Green, first, not a Naderite or an "independent progressive". I believe that the most effective way to work for the long term transformation of American politics (and thus the preservation of life on this planet) is build the Green Party into a credible and effective alternative to the politics of the status quo, as represented by the duopoly. I don't see how an independent campaign by Nader and Camejo does this, and so I find it hard to muster much enthusiasm for it. That said, Kerry's done nothing to earn my vote as of yet, and quite a bit to lose it... under normal circumstances; but we're not in normal times, and Bush strikes me as incredibly dangerous (or rather, those around him). Enough so, that I'm willing to concede that I might hold my nose in November and cast a vote for him, if things look close in California.
Put it another way: you're not likely to see me pounding the pavement, or writing a check, or holding a fundraiser, or manning a phone, for any candidate for President of the U.S. this fall. Ray Glock-Gruenich (Green) for Congress in the 17th District, anyone? :)
1. It (negatively) seals the fate of an independent Green Party candidacy by David Cobb. Faced with the double-whammy of a Nader/Camejo ticket, each of which draws upon a significant and not necessarily overlapping segment of the Green voter/activist population, it seems inconceivable that a Cobb campaign could gain any traction at all, even within the confines of the Green Party itself. Having Camejo running as the "Green" half of a Nader/Green "fusion" ticket* pretty much renders Cobbs' "Safe States" campaign pointless, and narrows even further a base already considerably shrunken by defections to the Nader campaign. A Cobb campaign would be a "rump" campaign in the most classic sense of the word, and I think most activists within the Green Party will recognize that and vote accordingly.
2. It renders whatever decision the Green Party makes in Milwaukee about endorsing Nader more or less irrelevant - with Camejo having delivered a big chunk of the Green grassroots to the Nader camp, all the convention can do is make it more or less difficult for Nader to obtain a few ballot lines. What will the convention decide? Who knows... my sense is that the momentum for a Nader endorsement is building, but at the same time, if Camejo's decision has finally put the last nail in the idea of an independent Green candidacy via David Cobb, as I think it has, it may very well result in a substantial number of the party's delegates opting to sit this one out, rather than putting the Green Party in the position of supporting and being a proxy for a candidate (or a pair of candidates) over which it has no control whatsoever.
Why Camejo?
1. There was a very strong "Draft Camejo" movement in the Green Party, folks who've been seeking to ensure that an authentically Green voice is heard this November, one that the media will have a hard time silencing. Camejo, even as the VP of a Nader ticket, fits that bill very well, and I think most of the Draft Camejo types will very willingly come on over to a Nader/Camejo ticket, regardless of whether the Green Party officially endorses it.
2. Camejo's always been a bit of a wildcard, willing to go his own way, regardless of whether or not the party establishment has bothered to line itself up behind him or not (such as when he plunged into the race for Governor of California during the recall election), and this fits. It also, as I point out above, pretty much seals off any potential for a strong campaign by a separate Green Party nominee.
* See: The Challenge of 2004: GREEN PARTY UNITY (from Peter Camejo) and Robert Caldwell's essay, For a Green-Nader Candidacy.
What do I think, personally? I don't know. I like Camejo, and I like Nader, but I'd like them both more if they were the official nominees of the Green Party itself, rather than independents making an end run around party process. I'm a Green, first, not a Naderite or an "independent progressive". I believe that the most effective way to work for the long term transformation of American politics (and thus the preservation of life on this planet) is build the Green Party into a credible and effective alternative to the politics of the status quo, as represented by the duopoly. I don't see how an independent campaign by Nader and Camejo does this, and so I find it hard to muster much enthusiasm for it. That said, Kerry's done nothing to earn my vote as of yet, and quite a bit to lose it... under normal circumstances; but we're not in normal times, and Bush strikes me as incredibly dangerous (or rather, those around him). Enough so, that I'm willing to concede that I might hold my nose in November and cast a vote for him, if things look close in California.
Put it another way: you're not likely to see me pounding the pavement, or writing a check, or holding a fundraiser, or manning a phone, for any candidate for President of the U.S. this fall. Ray Glock-Gruenich (Green) for Congress in the 17th District, anyone? :)
The Clinton Record – Let’s Not Forget
[Got this from the VoteNader web site.
Thought some of you read meat types might want to rip into it. Personally, I could name a half-dozen other things not mentioned here off the top of my head, starting with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and DOMA (the "Defense of Marriage Act", that pissed me off... -Thomas]
What the Clinton-Gore administration did:
Thought some of you read meat types might want to rip into it. Personally, I could name a half-dozen other things not mentioned here off the top of my head, starting with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and DOMA (the "Defense of Marriage Act", that pissed me off... -Thomas]
During the flurry of mass media attention being devoted this week to
Bill Clinton and his large book, it is well not to forget the poor
record of his Administration. Below is an appendix from Crashing the
Party that lists twenty actions and inactions during those eight years
that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would have approved.
Wouldn’t President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney have done the same thing?
What the Clinton-Gore administration did:
- Promoted legislation for welfare reform that ended the federal safety
net and put many children at risk. - Lobbied, with big business, NAFTA and GATT into law against labor,
consumer, environmental, and human-rights groups. - Expanded corporate welfare programs.
- Approved dozens of giant mergers in the chemical, oil, drug, defense,
agribusiness, media, HMO, hospital, auto, banking and other financial
industries. - Encouraged larger military weapons exports by the private munitions
companies using taxpayer subsidies and approved many costly, redundant
weapons programs. - Supported a bloated military budget, post-Soviet Union, driven more
by defense industry greed than national security needs. - Failed to enforce laws against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse.
- Gave away to corporations massive taxpayers assets in natural
resources, scientific, health, space, and other R&D areas. - Bailed out, with taxpayer billions, reckless foreign governments and
oligarchies through the IMF. - Opened up large areas of Northern Alaska for oil and gas drilling
and supported the destruction by coal companies of mountaintops in
Appalachia. - Gave the auto companies an eight-year holiday from higher fuel
efficiency auto safety standards. - Signed legislation eroding civil liberties and produced a record
that commentators called "abysmal." - Under-enforced the civil rights laws while orating for them.
- Backed large corporate prison expansions and failed to address
discriminatory patterns of criminal justice enforcement. - Supported dictatorships and oligarchies that have suppressed their
people. - Continued the deep sleep of the regulatory agencies at the expense
of health, safety, and economic assets of consumers and workers. - Favored big agribusiness over the family farmer.
- Subsidized and gave the biotechnology industry insulation from
regulation. - Raised large amounts of money from almost every corporate interest
and let big money continue to nullify honest elections. - Opposed ways and means to facilitate consumers, workers, taxpayer’s,
and investors banding together for self-defense.
Cleaning Up Republican Messes
I took a break from work and was clicking through the channels, and stopped on Crossfire for a minute. Right-winger guest Tony Blankley was saying that Clinton's "failure to nip bin Laden in the bud" will damage his reputation in the future.
How many variations of "9/11 was Clinton's fault" have you heard? Well, let's nip THIS in the bud right now.
Here's a 1998 story about bin Laden's Bush/Reagan CIA training and funding. This is just one of many such stories.
Once again, Clinton is being scapegoated by the people who created the mess in the first place, because he didn't sufficiently clean it up for them. For example, while he managed to bring us the longest economic expansion in history, as well as starting to pay down the debt, he didn't make the economy strong ENOUGH to withstand what Bush was going to do to it. So they say the economic mess is Clinton's fault.
Reagan and Bush funded and trained the Afghan resistance, including bin Laden, and then dropped them, no follow-up, didn't even get the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles back from them. Now they blame Clinton for not seeing what bin Laden was going to do ON BUSH'S WATCH and doing more to prevent it -- even though Clinton had made bin Laden the #1 priority, and was going around the country giving speeches warning about terrorism, and trying to get anti-terrorism bills passed that the Republicans were filibustering. (One they filibustered because Clinton wanted tags in explosives so we could learn where bombs were made.)
So it's all Clinton's fault because he didn't clean up the Republican mess ENOUGH.
How many variations of "9/11 was Clinton's fault" have you heard? Well, let's nip THIS in the bud right now.
Here's a 1998 story about bin Laden's Bush/Reagan CIA training and funding. This is just one of many such stories.
Once again, Clinton is being scapegoated by the people who created the mess in the first place, because he didn't sufficiently clean it up for them. For example, while he managed to bring us the longest economic expansion in history, as well as starting to pay down the debt, he didn't make the economy strong ENOUGH to withstand what Bush was going to do to it. So they say the economic mess is Clinton's fault.
Reagan and Bush funded and trained the Afghan resistance, including bin Laden, and then dropped them, no follow-up, didn't even get the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles back from them. Now they blame Clinton for not seeing what bin Laden was going to do ON BUSH'S WATCH and doing more to prevent it -- even though Clinton had made bin Laden the #1 priority, and was going around the country giving speeches warning about terrorism, and trying to get anti-terrorism bills passed that the Republicans were filibustering. (One they filibustered because Clinton wanted tags in explosives so we could learn where bombs were made.)
So it's all Clinton's fault because he didn't clean up the Republican mess ENOUGH.
6/21/2004
Let's not be hysterical
Al-Qaeda is not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Stalin and Hitler controlled enormous military forces located within or adjacent to the heartland of Europe, and Hitler was the master of one of the most productive economies and one of the most technically advanced nations in the world. (The USSR was no slouch either).
By contrast, all Muslim nations are economically weak. None of them has an industrial base or significant scientific or technical capacities. None of them has a genuinely fearsome military.
Furthermore, Islam is not united.The Shia / Sunni division is the most prominent, but there are many internal divisions within these large groupings too. There are twenty or more Muslim nations, and they are often intensely hostile to one another. Muslims speak more than ten major languages.
All Islam has is oil money and popular support. The popular support is broad but not necessarily deep; most Muslims are not militants and give nothing more than lipservice to the cause. Only the Islamists' ability to recruit suicide bombers makes them a threat at all.
Doesn't this tell us that we're going to be able to handle this? Doesn't it tell us that the hysteria about the collapse of Western civilization is unnecessary?
The 9/11 attack was unprecedented for America, but other nations have suffered much worse attacks (either absolutely or in proportion to their populations) without going insane. One example is El Salvador, which lost about 1% of its population to terrorism over about a decade.
Some of the hysteria (at the popular level) comes from people who have personal emotional problems and need to vent -- go to "Little Green Footballs" or "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler" if you don't believe me. But at the elite level, it comes mostly from politicians and policymakers whose agendas can't be fulfilled unless the American people are petrified with fear and obsessed with rage.
We should figure out what we have to do, and do it -- but without the hysteria, please. The United States has the most powerful military in the history of mankind. More than anything, we need a calm hand on the controls: the head cases should butt out.
By contrast, all Muslim nations are economically weak. None of them has an industrial base or significant scientific or technical capacities. None of them has a genuinely fearsome military.
Furthermore, Islam is not united.The Shia / Sunni division is the most prominent, but there are many internal divisions within these large groupings too. There are twenty or more Muslim nations, and they are often intensely hostile to one another. Muslims speak more than ten major languages.
All Islam has is oil money and popular support. The popular support is broad but not necessarily deep; most Muslims are not militants and give nothing more than lipservice to the cause. Only the Islamists' ability to recruit suicide bombers makes them a threat at all.
Doesn't this tell us that we're going to be able to handle this? Doesn't it tell us that the hysteria about the collapse of Western civilization is unnecessary?
The 9/11 attack was unprecedented for America, but other nations have suffered much worse attacks (either absolutely or in proportion to their populations) without going insane. One example is El Salvador, which lost about 1% of its population to terrorism over about a decade.
Some of the hysteria (at the popular level) comes from people who have personal emotional problems and need to vent -- go to "Little Green Footballs" or "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler" if you don't believe me. But at the elite level, it comes mostly from politicians and policymakers whose agendas can't be fulfilled unless the American people are petrified with fear and obsessed with rage.
We should figure out what we have to do, and do it -- but without the hysteria, please. The United States has the most powerful military in the history of mankind. More than anything, we need a calm hand on the controls: the head cases should butt out.
Another Republican Assault on Labor Rights
Nathan Newman writes about the Bush administration's National Labor Relations Board's latest assault on the rights of workers. This is worth reading to get more of an idea of the kinds of things that happen with Republicans run the country.
This case is an example of why so few union people are Greens. Ralph Nader says there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but this kind of thing shows why people in the Labor Movement so strongly support Democrats and don't succumb to the Green's call to split the coalition. Union people are living in a reality where they see every day how their jobs and rights are on the line. They understand about getting what you CAN get, incremental improvement, and the harm that can be done when people demand ideological perfection over pragmatic compromise.
This case is an example of why so few union people are Greens. Ralph Nader says there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but this kind of thing shows why people in the Labor Movement so strongly support Democrats and don't succumb to the Green's call to split the coalition. Union people are living in a reality where they see every day how their jobs and rights are on the line. They understand about getting what you CAN get, incremental improvement, and the harm that can be done when people demand ideological perfection over pragmatic compromise.
6/19/2004
Digby! Digby! Digby!
Hullabaloo:
"Let's face it, for many people in this country (and probably the president himself) all the high flown phony rhetoric about 'freedom and democracy' notwithstanding, this war is about killing arabs. For them,the terrorists were arabs therefore all arabs are terrorists. They couldn't care less about WMD or terrorist connections to Iraq.They wanted to make an example of somebody. It's pretty much nothing more than straight out bigotry."
6/18/2004
ENRON TAPES - Archival postings now easily available.
I've created a section under my personal web site (with the very capable assistance of Godmoma, my wife and in-house web designer) to make the various postings related to The Enron Tapes that I've made on this blog more easily accessible. I encourage folks to link back to this site, and of course to Seeing The Forest as well.
--Thomas Leavitt
--Thomas Leavitt
Google on what our elected representatives in Congress care about.
Google search results:
biodiversity site:house.gov - 401
biodiversity site:semate.gov - 254
iraq site:senate.gov - 20,300
iraq site:house.gov - 36,800
ecology site:senate.gov - 353
ecology site:house.gov - 582
"national security" site:house.gov - 28,500
"national security" site:semate.gov - 12,600
rainforest site:senate.gov - 64
rainforest site:house.gov - 113
military site:house.gov - 71,700
military site:senate.gov - 28,500
extinction site:senate.gov - 349
extinction site:house.gov - 496
bomber site:house.gov - 638
bomber site:house.gov - 329
submarine site:senate.gov - 548
submarine site:house.gov - 1000
How about some of the Green Party's 10 Key Values?
"Ecological Wisdom" site:senate.gov - 1
"Ecological Wisdom" site:house.gov - 0
"Nonviolence" site:senate.gov - 28
"Nonviolence" site:house.gov - 115
"Social Justice" site:senate.gov - 4830
"Social Justice" site:house.gov - 8600
"Grassroots Democracy" site:senate.gov - 3
"Grassroots Democracy" site:house.gov - 18
"Feminism" site:house.gov - 3
"Feminism" site:house.gov - 9
how about a variant? ... not much better
feminist site:senate.gov - 31
feminist site:house.gov - 103
sexism site:senate.gov - 23
sexism site:house.gov - 48
racism site:senate.gov - 191
racism site:house.gov - 576
"tax cut" site:senate.gov - 4390
"tax cut" site:house.gov - 9810
"environmental sustainability" site:senate.gov - 33
"environmental sustainability" site:house.gov - 64
"south america" site:senate.gov - 512
"south america" site:house.gov - 899
africa site:senate.gov - 3660
africa site:house.gov - 6510
china site:senate.gov - 4930
china site:house.gov - 13600
germany site:senate.gov - 2330
germany site:house.gov - 5460
"hate crime" site:senate.gov - 120
"hate crime" site:senate.gov - 214
pornography site:senate.gov - 998
pornography site:house.gov - 2090
Pretty interesting, eh? I suspect that most of you can guess what I think about the bipartisan priorities of our elected officials in the face of global ecological devastation and mass injustice worldwide.
Someone with more coding chops than myself might be able to create a pretty interesting website out of this.
--Thomas Leavitt
biodiversity site:house.gov - 401
biodiversity site:semate.gov - 254
iraq site:senate.gov - 20,300
iraq site:house.gov - 36,800
ecology site:senate.gov - 353
ecology site:house.gov - 582
"national security" site:house.gov - 28,500
"national security" site:semate.gov - 12,600
rainforest site:senate.gov - 64
rainforest site:house.gov - 113
military site:house.gov - 71,700
military site:senate.gov - 28,500
extinction site:senate.gov - 349
extinction site:house.gov - 496
bomber site:house.gov - 638
bomber site:house.gov - 329
submarine site:senate.gov - 548
submarine site:house.gov - 1000
How about some of the Green Party's 10 Key Values?
"Ecological Wisdom" site:senate.gov - 1
"Ecological Wisdom" site:house.gov - 0
"Nonviolence" site:senate.gov - 28
"Nonviolence" site:house.gov - 115
"Social Justice" site:senate.gov - 4830
"Social Justice" site:house.gov - 8600
"Grassroots Democracy" site:senate.gov - 3
"Grassroots Democracy" site:house.gov - 18
"Feminism" site:house.gov - 3
"Feminism" site:house.gov - 9
how about a variant? ... not much better
feminist site:senate.gov - 31
feminist site:house.gov - 103
sexism site:senate.gov - 23
sexism site:house.gov - 48
racism site:senate.gov - 191
racism site:house.gov - 576
"tax cut" site:senate.gov - 4390
"tax cut" site:house.gov - 9810
"environmental sustainability" site:senate.gov - 33
"environmental sustainability" site:house.gov - 64
"south america" site:senate.gov - 512
"south america" site:house.gov - 899
africa site:senate.gov - 3660
africa site:house.gov - 6510
china site:senate.gov - 4930
china site:house.gov - 13600
germany site:senate.gov - 2330
germany site:house.gov - 5460
"hate crime" site:senate.gov - 120
"hate crime" site:senate.gov - 214
pornography site:senate.gov - 998
pornography site:house.gov - 2090
Pretty interesting, eh? I suspect that most of you can guess what I think about the bipartisan priorities of our elected officials in the face of global ecological devastation and mass injustice worldwide.
Someone with more coding chops than myself might be able to create a pretty interesting website out of this.
--Thomas Leavitt
Pretty Serious Stuff
Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam:
This is Putin's second venture into the US elections in a week. Last week he said the Democrats have "no moral right" to criticize Bush.
So we have some kind of deal between Putin and Bush to help Bush in the election. And we already know that Bush has a deal with the Saudis to lower gas prices at the pump in time for the election. (Raising them dramatically and then lowering them a little bit SEEMS like a reduction to the voters, yet brings in the cash as well.)
What's coming? Watch your backs.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin , in comments sure to help President Bush, declared Friday that Russia knew Iraq's Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington. "So Russia warned the US? And the CIA and no other agencies of the government have ANY recollection of this? Even though it would save their ASSES right now to be able to say this happened?
This is Putin's second venture into the US elections in a week. Last week he said the Democrats have "no moral right" to criticize Bush.
So we have some kind of deal between Putin and Bush to help Bush in the election. And we already know that Bush has a deal with the Saudis to lower gas prices at the pump in time for the election. (Raising them dramatically and then lowering them a little bit SEEMS like a reduction to the voters, yet brings in the cash as well.)
What's coming? Watch your backs.
ENRON TAPES - What people don't get about this case: it isn't about Enron alone.
The Enron Tapes and the Snohomish vs. Enron hearing aren't just about a few potty mouthed "bad apples" at Enron engaging in opportunistic exploitation of regulatory loopholes (as Enron's PR people would like you to believe). They highlight a fundamental problem of our system of governance: the balance of power between corporations and the average human citizen is way out of whack. This is a point that those of us on our side of the issue would be well served to bring to the fore.
Enron lobbied our legislators and regulatory agencies with the conscious and deliberate intent of creating a non-transparent marketplace full of inefficiencies that they could then exploit (see Dr. Carl Pechman's testimony, quoted in previous posts). AND OUR LEGISLATORS AND REGULATORS LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT... or rather, they did not intervene, because they saw nothing unusual in the process as it happened. This doesn't always result in disaster (apparently New York state managed the deregulation process better), but it happens way too often.
The technical term for this is "regulatory capture". (1) This term was created approximately thirty years ago by Richard Posner, so it is not a new problem - just an ever more pressing one. The theory is ultimately very logical, and meshes with that of another political truism: those with the most concentrated interest in a particular aspect of governmental policy will have the most influence over it... and since, in many cases, the entities with the greatest interest are those being regulated, and have the most resources to devote to influencing the regulators and legislators, the result is pretty predictable -- and especially dangerous, due to the amoral imperatives fostered by corporation based capitalism, as I'll discuss later on.
And it doesn't matter which party is running things. This particular instance was a bi-partisan effort: it happened under a Republican Governor and was initiated by a Democratic representative in a legislature throughly controlled by a strong Democratic Party majority (AB1890 passed the State Legislature unanimously, 77-0 in the Assembly and 39-0 in the Senate), and it blew up under a Democratic governor and a Democratic, then Republican President.
This goes beyond partisan ideology - what we are talking about here is the fact that elements of corporate America have systematically subverted our government's regulatory apparatus for private gain. This happens over and over and over again, regardless of which party is in power, at any level. In this particular instance, it just happened to go sour in a very big, and very public way.
The movie "The Corporation", subject of a feature article in Metro Santa Cruz (an alternative weekly newspaper published in my home town) posits that this is part and parcel of the behavior fostered in those participating in the economic structures of corporation based capitalism. I haven't seen the actual movie yet, but it is clear from the article that the movie's creators believe that until we change from a system based on the corporation as the basic operational economic unit, a system which makes amoral behavior not only legal, but essentially mandates it, all efforts to remediate the problems our society faces will be futile.
The fact that the motivations of those influencing our government and regulatory processes are essentially amoral would explain a lot, eh? It would also explain why, under this particular administration, so heavy with corporate types, amoral behavior has become par for the course.
I'll end this by re-emphasizing my core point: the Enron tapes are about more than Enron, they are about the fundamentally corrupted nature of our system of economic and social governance, as exemplified by Enron's efforts to influence the regulatory structure it would in turn operate within; our side needs to bring this aspect to the fore of the discussion, and not let itself be distracted by the more sensationalistic aspects of the case, which are essentially trivial in nature, and not particularly relevatory (which is one reason why I think that the phenomenon of these tapes simply hasn't produced the political and social firestorm one might have expected, given their inflammatory nature).
1. This is an economic term describing a situation where one operator (or group of operators) in the market uses its influence or resources to extract a regulatory decision, or lack of decision, for their own benefit rather than the benefit of society as a whole.
It is associated with patterns of behaviour on the part of a regulatory body in one, or a combination, of the following situations:
* the regulatory body is tending to further producer interests over consumer interests.
* the regulatory body has become overly protective towards the regulated entities.
* the regulatory body is tending to adopt objectives that are very close to those of the entities it is supposed to regulate.
(Definition source: www.betterregulation.ie/ getFile.asp?FC_ID=18&docID=48)
P.S. As a Green, I have to point out that Ralph Nader and the Green Party have made untrammeled corporate power a major theme from day one. In a sense, it can be said that the Democratic Party's systematic neglect of this issue has created the political breathing space for Naderism and the Green Party to emerge as an visible force in American politics, as it is clear from polls and surveys that their strongest support comes from those folks who see this as a core issue. In my opinion, John Kerry and the Democratic Party (as well as the nation as a whole) would be much better off if they attempted to secure their "left flank" by addressing this issue directly, rather than continuing the obviously futile (and rather annoying) tactics they've used to date.
--Thomas Leavitt
Enron lobbied our legislators and regulatory agencies with the conscious and deliberate intent of creating a non-transparent marketplace full of inefficiencies that they could then exploit (see Dr. Carl Pechman's testimony, quoted in previous posts). AND OUR LEGISLATORS AND REGULATORS LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT... or rather, they did not intervene, because they saw nothing unusual in the process as it happened. This doesn't always result in disaster (apparently New York state managed the deregulation process better), but it happens way too often.
The technical term for this is "regulatory capture". (1) This term was created approximately thirty years ago by Richard Posner, so it is not a new problem - just an ever more pressing one. The theory is ultimately very logical, and meshes with that of another political truism: those with the most concentrated interest in a particular aspect of governmental policy will have the most influence over it... and since, in many cases, the entities with the greatest interest are those being regulated, and have the most resources to devote to influencing the regulators and legislators, the result is pretty predictable -- and especially dangerous, due to the amoral imperatives fostered by corporation based capitalism, as I'll discuss later on.
And it doesn't matter which party is running things. This particular instance was a bi-partisan effort: it happened under a Republican Governor and was initiated by a Democratic representative in a legislature throughly controlled by a strong Democratic Party majority (AB1890 passed the State Legislature unanimously, 77-0 in the Assembly and 39-0 in the Senate), and it blew up under a Democratic governor and a Democratic, then Republican President.
This goes beyond partisan ideology - what we are talking about here is the fact that elements of corporate America have systematically subverted our government's regulatory apparatus for private gain. This happens over and over and over again, regardless of which party is in power, at any level. In this particular instance, it just happened to go sour in a very big, and very public way.
The movie "The Corporation", subject of a feature article in Metro Santa Cruz (an alternative weekly newspaper published in my home town) posits that this is part and parcel of the behavior fostered in those participating in the economic structures of corporation based capitalism. I haven't seen the actual movie yet, but it is clear from the article that the movie's creators believe that until we change from a system based on the corporation as the basic operational economic unit, a system which makes amoral behavior not only legal, but essentially mandates it, all efforts to remediate the problems our society faces will be futile.
The fact that the motivations of those influencing our government and regulatory processes are essentially amoral would explain a lot, eh? It would also explain why, under this particular administration, so heavy with corporate types, amoral behavior has become par for the course.
I'll end this by re-emphasizing my core point: the Enron tapes are about more than Enron, they are about the fundamentally corrupted nature of our system of economic and social governance, as exemplified by Enron's efforts to influence the regulatory structure it would in turn operate within; our side needs to bring this aspect to the fore of the discussion, and not let itself be distracted by the more sensationalistic aspects of the case, which are essentially trivial in nature, and not particularly relevatory (which is one reason why I think that the phenomenon of these tapes simply hasn't produced the political and social firestorm one might have expected, given their inflammatory nature).
1. This is an economic term describing a situation where one operator (or group of operators) in the market uses its influence or resources to extract a regulatory decision, or lack of decision, for their own benefit rather than the benefit of society as a whole.
It is associated with patterns of behaviour on the part of a regulatory body in one, or a combination, of the following situations:
* the regulatory body is tending to further producer interests over consumer interests.
* the regulatory body has become overly protective towards the regulated entities.
* the regulatory body is tending to adopt objectives that are very close to those of the entities it is supposed to regulate.
(Definition source: www.betterregulation.ie/ getFile.asp?FC_ID=18&docID=48)
P.S. As a Green, I have to point out that Ralph Nader and the Green Party have made untrammeled corporate power a major theme from day one. In a sense, it can be said that the Democratic Party's systematic neglect of this issue has created the political breathing space for Naderism and the Green Party to emerge as an visible force in American politics, as it is clear from polls and surveys that their strongest support comes from those folks who see this as a core issue. In my opinion, John Kerry and the Democratic Party (as well as the nation as a whole) would be much better off if they attempted to secure their "left flank" by addressing this issue directly, rather than continuing the obviously futile (and rather annoying) tactics they've used to date.
--Thomas Leavitt
6/17/2004
Stick It To Bush
See the Bush Voodoo Doll, in the ad on the right side of this page! A great Father's Day gift!
Rumsfeld Must Go!
Rumsfeld Ordered Secret Arrest in Iraq,
And, as a result, no American captured in a war will ever again be safe from torture or other crimes.
And, from the story, there's this gem:
WASHINGTON - At the request of CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the military to secretly hold a suspected terrorist in Iraq , a Pentagon spokesman said.LIARS! We can't trust a word this man says. WHY IS HE STILL THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?!
The suspected terrorist has been held since October without being given an identification number and without the International Committee of the Red Cross being notified, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Both conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war.
[. . .] The Bush administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to suspected terrorists who do not follow the conventions themselves. But Rumsfeld and other administration officials have said the Geneva Conventions applied to all U.S. military activities in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.
And, as a result, no American captured in a war will ever again be safe from torture or other crimes.
And, from the story, there's this gem:
Maj. David Kolarik, a spokesman for the military's Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, said all prisoners are treated "in accordance with the principles" of the Geneva Conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."In other words, we follow the rules when we feel like it.
6/16/2004
Very Strange E-mail Problem
Has anyone out there heard of a problem like this? I can't send file attachments. If I attach a picture or a Word file, it never arrives at its destination. I can, however, attach a very short text file and it arrives. This started yesterday morning.
I thought it was only through my nuthouse account. But then I also couldn't send attachments through another account.
So I went to another computer - a Mac now - and sent some files through Hotmail and .Mac accounts. THOSE files also did not arrive.
I find that I CAN send files through my Comcast account that comes with the cable modem service.
The files sent yesterday still have not arrived.
Any ideas?
I thought it was only through my nuthouse account. But then I also couldn't send attachments through another account.
So I went to another computer - a Mac now - and sent some files through Hotmail and .Mac accounts. THOSE files also did not arrive.
I find that I CAN send files through my Comcast account that comes with the cable modem service.
The files sent yesterday still have not arrived.
Any ideas?
6/15/2004
Suicidal Tendencies
Today's paper is running a "comic strip" that in essence tells people not to read newspapers because they are pro-terrorist and have a, quote, "blame America first attitude".
This link is good for a short period only, for the particular comic I am referring to. But later you can go here and look up the week of June 14. (The week of June 7 begins the attack.)
How do the newspaper serve their interests by publishing a cartoon that INSULTS half of their readers, with right-wing stuff that divides the country to the point of fomenting civil war? I mean, if you BELIEVE that half the country is pro-terrorist, which puts you LIFE at risk, and anti-American ...
This link is good for a short period only, for the particular comic I am referring to. But later you can go here and look up the week of June 14. (The week of June 7 begins the attack.)
How do the newspaper serve their interests by publishing a cartoon that INSULTS half of their readers, with right-wing stuff that divides the country to the point of fomenting civil war? I mean, if you BELIEVE that half the country is pro-terrorist, which puts you LIFE at risk, and anti-American ...
6/14/2004
What The Left Coaster Said
Hatch and McCain on Their Knees:
"What's unfortunate is that John McCain has lost whatever pair he has left and doesn't cite the Pentagon for contempt of Congress too. It's hard to imagine what's more appalling--executive public servants with so little regard to serving the people openly, or two such distinguished, senior members of the United States Senate forsaking their duty in such loathsome, obsequious, craven capitulation to ethical principles and their oversight responsibilities"
ENRON TAPES - The Web Site
www.enrontapes.com
Coverage of the Enron Tapes should be on major media outlets (CNN, NBC) tonight.
The site above contains individual links to each of the 82 publicly released audio files and associated transcripts, as well as the motion and testimony describing them and documenting their significance. It also contains links to information on the Snohomish PUD Web site.
Disclaimer: My wife and I received (a small amount of) financial compensation to design and assemble this site on behalf of my former employer and Snohomish, their client. She is a professional web site designer, and I assist her with content development and grunt HTML coding. :)
--Thomas Leavitt
Coverage of the Enron Tapes should be on major media outlets (CNN, NBC) tonight.
The site above contains individual links to each of the 82 publicly released audio files and associated transcripts, as well as the motion and testimony describing them and documenting their significance. It also contains links to information on the Snohomish PUD Web site.
Disclaimer: My wife and I received (a small amount of) financial compensation to design and assemble this site on behalf of my former employer and Snohomish, their client. She is a professional web site designer, and I assist her with content development and grunt HTML coding. :)
--Thomas Leavitt
Whatever It Takes
the american street: Proto-fascist thuggery:
Watch your backs.
"None of this will ever be directly connected to George W. Bush, of course. There's no need. There are too many people out there willing to do whatever it takes to keep him in office. Whatever it takes."Whatever it takes.
Watch your backs.
6/13/2004
Abu Ghraib 6-13
Abu Ghraib 6-13
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002017.html
I am astonished by the silence of a lot of libertarian types about a lot of things. What a bunch of frauds! If I’m not mistaken, the inexplicably-respected Jane Galt recently signed on to the Bush team (tacitly, by her use of the word “we” in a political context).
Volokh’s shame over his squeamishness (i.e., decency) is rather sickeningly characteristic of our times. In law, philosophy, PR, political consultancy, and advertising, “rationality” is regarded as the willingness to argue for or against any position whatsoever.
I read somewhere (Hannah Arendt??) that most of the anti-Nazi resisters (and shelterers of Jews) were naive, simple-minded people who had a gut feeling that something was wrong. Whereas Eichmann had a Kantian explanation for what he did.
There’s a second factor. The 9/11 attack was not an unprecedented murderous attack on civilians. There were several technically and organizationally unique aspects to 9/11, but the murderousness was normal-range.
The reason that 9/11 is thought to be a world-historical event is that it was an attack on the militarily most powerful nation in the history of the world. It was an attack on someone who was able to retaliate.
At some point the Bosnians, the Salvadorans, the Guatamalans, the Ruandans, the Timorese, and many other have had to learn to forget about murderous episodes which were absolutely much worse, and proportionate to population enormously worse. But these are powerless peoples.
Even the French, the Germans, the Poles, et. al. — larger, more prosperous nations — have had to learn to go on with their lives.
Where does the belief come from that this particular attack is so uniquely horrible that it justifies forgetting about a century or more of attempts to reduce the inhumanity of warfare? As far as I know, it comes from America’s historical impunity. We’ve really been very favored and don’t know how to deal with this.
The secrecy of the adversaries adds to the urgency, but now that we’re focussing on them they have become much less mysterious.
I think that the worst interpretation of what’s happening is the best. The Bush plan is to fight an endless war against a nebulous enemy, and to use the war as a pretext to ram through a lot of programs which are often unrelated to the war, together with an enormously increased police and surveillance powers and much less oversight or Constitutional limitation on the executive.
Libertarians who fail to realize this are pornographic and entirely without redeeming social value and absolutely worthless for any human purpose and should be mercifully put to sleep. Remember, we’re talking about people who are thrown into a rage by the very idea of the unconstitutional Smithsonian Institute and the unconstitutional National Academy of the Arts.
http://philosophy.thereitis.org/displayarticle248.html
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002017.html
I am astonished by the silence of a lot of libertarian types about a lot of things. What a bunch of frauds! If I’m not mistaken, the inexplicably-respected Jane Galt recently signed on to the Bush team (tacitly, by her use of the word “we” in a political context).
Volokh’s shame over his squeamishness (i.e., decency) is rather sickeningly characteristic of our times. In law, philosophy, PR, political consultancy, and advertising, “rationality” is regarded as the willingness to argue for or against any position whatsoever.
I read somewhere (Hannah Arendt??) that most of the anti-Nazi resisters (and shelterers of Jews) were naive, simple-minded people who had a gut feeling that something was wrong. Whereas Eichmann had a Kantian explanation for what he did.
There’s a second factor. The 9/11 attack was not an unprecedented murderous attack on civilians. There were several technically and organizationally unique aspects to 9/11, but the murderousness was normal-range.
The reason that 9/11 is thought to be a world-historical event is that it was an attack on the militarily most powerful nation in the history of the world. It was an attack on someone who was able to retaliate.
At some point the Bosnians, the Salvadorans, the Guatamalans, the Ruandans, the Timorese, and many other have had to learn to forget about murderous episodes which were absolutely much worse, and proportionate to population enormously worse. But these are powerless peoples.
Even the French, the Germans, the Poles, et. al. — larger, more prosperous nations — have had to learn to go on with their lives.
Where does the belief come from that this particular attack is so uniquely horrible that it justifies forgetting about a century or more of attempts to reduce the inhumanity of warfare? As far as I know, it comes from America’s historical impunity. We’ve really been very favored and don’t know how to deal with this.
The secrecy of the adversaries adds to the urgency, but now that we’re focussing on them they have become much less mysterious.
I think that the worst interpretation of what’s happening is the best. The Bush plan is to fight an endless war against a nebulous enemy, and to use the war as a pretext to ram through a lot of programs which are often unrelated to the war, together with an enormously increased police and surveillance powers and much less oversight or Constitutional limitation on the executive.
Libertarians who fail to realize this are pornographic and entirely without redeeming social value and absolutely worthless for any human purpose and should be mercifully put to sleep. Remember, we’re talking about people who are thrown into a rage by the very idea of the unconstitutional Smithsonian Institute and the unconstitutional National Academy of the Arts.
http://philosophy.thereitis.org/displayarticle248.html
What 800-lb. Gorilla?
The hapless winger hack at the Portland Oregonian, David Reinhard, has revived the Iraq - 9/11 connection. It's mostly based on a possible meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in the Czech Republic, with some new twists. Reinhard's case probably can be traced back to Edward Jay Epstein's work, which has been partly refuted by Spinsanity.
But really, who cares? We know a lot about al Qaeda. They had and still have high-level supporters (both in government and among private citizens)in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. One of the hijackers may even have received money (indirectly, of course!) from Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
The Saudi gorilla is right there in the room, but the wingers are still running all over the place trying to catch the Iraqi mouse. Perhaps there was some connection between Iraq and the hijackers, but if you're trying to figure out what happened on 9/11, Iraq isn't the place to look. Saudi Arabia is the place to look.
Something that might be considered is tracking cash transfers to al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia. But they're much more interested (5.2 times more interested, to be precise) in tracking money going to Cuba.
Why? Because there are a lot of Cuban votes in Florida, to begin with. But the real reason is that several members of the Bush administration have reasons to be a bit touchy about investigations of cash transfers from Saudi Arabia. Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud can tell you more.
Or you can just go to my Bandar Bush page.
But really, who cares? We know a lot about al Qaeda. They had and still have high-level supporters (both in government and among private citizens)in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. One of the hijackers may even have received money (indirectly, of course!) from Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
The Saudi gorilla is right there in the room, but the wingers are still running all over the place trying to catch the Iraqi mouse. Perhaps there was some connection between Iraq and the hijackers, but if you're trying to figure out what happened on 9/11, Iraq isn't the place to look. Saudi Arabia is the place to look.
Something that might be considered is tracking cash transfers to al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia. But they're much more interested (5.2 times more interested, to be precise) in tracking money going to Cuba.
Why? Because there are a lot of Cuban votes in Florida, to begin with. But the real reason is that several members of the Bush administration have reasons to be a bit touchy about investigations of cash transfers from Saudi Arabia. Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud can tell you more.
Or you can just go to my Bandar Bush page.
Reagan is the Greatest American President Ever, Except Maybe Van Buren
The wingers have disappointed me; the only prominent self-described conservative to describe Reagan as the greatest American President of all is Larry Kleiman, of Clinton-impeachment infamy, and he did it several years ago.
Perhaps the rest of them are reluctant to unseat the founder of the Republican party, especially since people might then start talking about the fact that a significant part of the Republican core constituency really, really hates Lincoln.
Note that Van Buren has strong support from a hyper-winger. If you read the PDF, you'll find that he also ranks Harding and Coolidge in the top five. You can't make this stuff up.
After playing a memorable clip of one of President Ronald Reagan's speeches, Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman praised the life of the greatest American president.
Historians seldom give the eighth president of the United States the recognition he deserves. Van Buren’s avoidance of foreign wars, successful fight to reduce central authority, unsurpassed ideological clarity and enduring positive influence on the Democratic Party make him arguably the president most responsible for the freedoms enjoyed by the American people.
"The SBL organization is group of US patriots dedicated to having the Statue of Liberty sent back to the French. We believe that the French Government has effectively betrayed the safety of the United States of America by refusing to accept the fact that Saddam Hussein is a danger to every freedom-loving nation and by blocking any UN resolution to oust Saddam from power.....As Liberty Island is an important tourist attraction, we believe a better, more American statue should be put in Liberty's place. Here is our suggestion: Ronald Reagan"
Simply put, Bell said he believes that Reagan is the greatest American president.
Commissioner Roger Baenziger reserved his comments for the Central Park Ceremony, where he referred to Reagan as the greatest American president.
"As far as I'm concerned, he was our greatest American president," he said.
While the site is still under development, it contains some vital and important information about the man who many consider the greatest American president.
My name is Reid Davis. I am a civilian. I just want to say that a carrier named after the greatest American President is awesome.
Also out in force Thursday were post-Reagan Reaganites, those too young to ... be 18 years old, but I know he was the greatest American president ever." (Get the whole story by registering!).
Perhaps the rest of them are reluctant to unseat the founder of the Republican party, especially since people might then start talking about the fact that a significant part of the Republican core constituency really, really hates Lincoln.
Note that Van Buren has strong support from a hyper-winger. If you read the PDF, you'll find that he also ranks Harding and Coolidge in the top five. You can't make this stuff up.
After playing a memorable clip of one of President Ronald Reagan's speeches, Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman praised the life of the greatest American president.
Historians seldom give the eighth president of the United States the recognition he deserves. Van Buren’s avoidance of foreign wars, successful fight to reduce central authority, unsurpassed ideological clarity and enduring positive influence on the Democratic Party make him arguably the president most responsible for the freedoms enjoyed by the American people.
"The SBL organization is group of US patriots dedicated to having the Statue of Liberty sent back to the French. We believe that the French Government has effectively betrayed the safety of the United States of America by refusing to accept the fact that Saddam Hussein is a danger to every freedom-loving nation and by blocking any UN resolution to oust Saddam from power.....As Liberty Island is an important tourist attraction, we believe a better, more American statue should be put in Liberty's place. Here is our suggestion: Ronald Reagan"
Simply put, Bell said he believes that Reagan is the greatest American president.
Commissioner Roger Baenziger reserved his comments for the Central Park Ceremony, where he referred to Reagan as the greatest American president.
"As far as I'm concerned, he was our greatest American president," he said.
While the site is still under development, it contains some vital and important information about the man who many consider the greatest American president.
My name is Reid Davis. I am a civilian. I just want to say that a carrier named after the greatest American President is awesome.
Also out in force Thursday were post-Reagan Reaganites, those too young to ... be 18 years old, but I know he was the greatest American president ever." (Get the whole story by registering!).
6/12/2004
Am I Against "Conservatives"?
Thanks to Digby (Dibgy! Dibgy! Dibgy!) I found this Mike Finley piece:
"But my enemy is not conservatism (which is rooted in wariness of human nature) but corporate radicalism (rooted in laissez-faire, let-it-rip economics) - what was called fascism just before Hitler confused the term - government that works hand in glove with select large corporations, with amassed wealth. Our current government is 'fascist' in the 1920s Italian sense of the word. It is a radical form of assisting the wealthy to increase and maintain economic power. This is not a good thing. It seeks to undermine democracy and turn the nation into a 'market' and nothing more.(Digby found it through Avedon Carol.)
Billionaires, who understand the danger of wealth imbalance to society's fabric -- oppose this regime - Gates, Buffett, Allen, Soros, McCartney. 'Mere' millionaires, who are still glorying in their tax reductions, love it.
Evangelical Christians, whom I love (I voted for two of them, Clinton once and Carter twice), have sold their virtue to the radical elements of the fascist neo-conservative movement. In return for a couple of dinky maneuvers - anti-gay marriage amendment (which will fail), and anti-partial birth abortion law (which has already been declared unconstitutional) - they get in bed with the devil. I say shame on them - they are hiding behind their innocence, which is a form of abdication of responsibility.
If the devil is alive today (and I believe he is) wouldn't he tempt people every possible way? Including manipulating them to "vote for virtue" and keep the money class on top? Honesty: will one rich family forswear an abortion for their pregnant 14 year old daughter? No. The law is only for the poor and middle classes to obey. This is why I oppose it. My wife works in a poverty clinic, and it seems very wrong to her that our country wants to only allow the wealthy to get abortions."
Bridging the Gap on Health Care
This is important:
From SEIU's Fight For The Future Blog:
Bridging the Gap on Health Care
From SEIU's Fight For The Future Blog:
Bridging the Gap on Health Care
Before you finish reading this blog post, five more people will have lost their health care coverage. Nationwide, 44 million people have no health insurance, and 80 percent of those without coverage come from working families.June 19 is next Saturday.
Under President Bush, 4 million more Americans lost their coverage, average health care costs have gone up nearly 50 percent, and premiums have gone up more than three times faster than average wages.
For many, these statistics are appalling, but not surprising, because we have seen our friends and family struggle with too little health care. We understand their fear of losing it altogether. Or we ourselves have fought for better coverage at the bargaining table, or have had to walk the picket line for it.
But the bottom line is nobody should have to choose between paying the bills and getting prescription drugs. And nobody should have to forgo treatment because they won’t be able to put food on the table.
It’s a national problem. We need a national solution.
It’s going to take a national action to help achieve it.
[. . .] On Saturday, June 19th, tens of thousands of people -- those who have health insurance and those who don't, those who fear losing coverage and those who have too little -- will join together across the country to bridge the gap in health care.
From the Golden Gate Bridge to the Brooklyn Bridge, I’m asking you to be a part of a national action to call for quality, affordable, health care for all!
The national Day of Action is sponsored by Rock the Vote, Jobs with Justice, and SEIU’s own Americans for Health Care. Each of us has an important role to play -- Let’s build a movement and bridge the gap.
To find an event near you, or to start your own event, go to:
http://www.ImAHealthCareVoter.org/BridgingTheGap
Digby! Digby! Digby!
Continuing my occasional Digby! Dibgy! Digby! series, we have this today:
"The stench of defeat is starting to rise off of him. I watched it happen to Carter and Senior. People keep a little distance. They don't look him in the eye. The winner's gloss is replaced by a sheen of desperation. He's got trouble. You can smell it."
6/11/2004
Mathew Gross: Going Negative
Mathew Gross: Going Negative:
"It's not just the hollowness of Bush's 'uniter, not a divider' rhetoric that we're dealing with any longer; it's the reality that only through division can he win."Bush's toxic negativity is poisoning the public environment. It sets us against each other, and is a recipe for an unmanagable country after the election - if there even is one. Watch your backs.
6/10/2004
Ad Sale
No BlogAds ads right now, so ads are cheap for a while. Got something you want to sell to thousands to informed, influential readers like yourself? Click on "Advertise at Seeing the Forest" over on the right.
A True Honor
I am honored, I say, HONORED to be mentioned in a piece that contains this line:
"I should add that if Capitol Hill Blue really can be trusted, Rove has much bigger problems than being called an idiot by a GOP consultant, which is really like being called smelly by a wart hog with a bowel control problem."My name anywhere near that line ranks WAY up there in my lifetime achievements list.
Once Again, Democrats Not Invited
GOP Leaders Eulogize The 40th President.
This was a "state funeral." But only Republicans were invited. And some ex-heads of state from other countries. Presidents Carter and Clinton, for example, were excluded. So ex-heads of foreign states attend a STATE FUNERAL, held in the US CAPITAL ROTUNDA, but not former Presidents of the United States, which has been the tradition until now. Yet barely a mention in the press.
Compare the Democrats' response to this nasty snub with the way Paul Wellstone's funeral was handled. The Republicans used that as a political stunt, and took back the Senate as a result. But the Democrats don't even mention what the Republicans have done here -- thereby ACCEPTING being excluded from the life of the country! ACCEPTING the Right's politicization and division of everything in American life. Well they are supposed to represent ME, and are failing me by accepting that the Republicans exclude me and the rest of my half of the country from participating in America.
They are being clear about this, it is THEIR country, not OUR country. Democrats are NOT invited to participate in America anymore.
Update - another story, "CLINTON FURIOUS AT REAGAN SNUB"
This was a "state funeral." But only Republicans were invited. And some ex-heads of state from other countries. Presidents Carter and Clinton, for example, were excluded. So ex-heads of foreign states attend a STATE FUNERAL, held in the US CAPITAL ROTUNDA, but not former Presidents of the United States, which has been the tradition until now. Yet barely a mention in the press.
Compare the Democrats' response to this nasty snub with the way Paul Wellstone's funeral was handled. The Republicans used that as a political stunt, and took back the Senate as a result. But the Democrats don't even mention what the Republicans have done here -- thereby ACCEPTING being excluded from the life of the country! ACCEPTING the Right's politicization and division of everything in American life. Well they are supposed to represent ME, and are failing me by accepting that the Republicans exclude me and the rest of my half of the country from participating in America.
They are being clear about this, it is THEIR country, not OUR country. Democrats are NOT invited to participate in America anymore.
Update - another story, "CLINTON FURIOUS AT REAGAN SNUB"
6/09/2004
Pandagon: Killing the Middle
Ezra at Pandagon has chimed in on the discussion (continued in the post below this one) of how to deal with the Right, and the comments are many and interesting. Go read, and join in - leave a comment there and/or here.
Not Getting the Point
Matthew Yglesias responds to the Matt Stoller post I pointed to (twice) yesterday. (Which is similar to this scary piece I wrote yesterday.) He doesn't seem to get the point. I left this comment:
Richard and Thomas - what do YOU think we should do with them after the election? (Assuming your boy Ralph doesn't siphon off enough votes and get Bush back in.)
Your post misses his point and makes his point at the same time. You're talking about "the merits of pragmatic compromise" and wishing you could have good-faith debates on issues with these guys, while they're creeping up on you carrying a noose.Matt left a coment too,
This attitude is what I'm pointing at. The passive voice 'are given sufficiently solid defeats...' implies a certain reticence in realizing that WE are the ones who must administer the defeats. Moreover, the question is not just of electoral defeats, but of punishment. If you accept that this is essentially a criminal gang running a fraudulent political apparatus based on increasing their amount of power and institutionalizing the placement of certain monied classes above the law, then electoral defeats don't begin to address the political problem that we must deal with. Well, they begin to, but only just.(Matt uses more words than me.)
My question is still as follows: When Kerry takes office (let's assume), what happens to the people who have run this government, and run it ignoring law and moral probity? Do they get off like the Iran-Contra people did? Do they get off like the Clinton haters did? After all, these are the same people who from Watergate onward have sought to subvert US legality in pursuit of illiberal objectives. They have committed electoral fraud, financial fraud, intelligence fraud, and torture. This is not hyperbole, but reality. So how do you deal with criminal actions at the highest levels of power?
Sending them back to their proverbial ranches in Texas doesn't involve enough handcuffs for my taste.
Richard and Thomas - what do YOU think we should do with them after the election? (Assuming your boy Ralph doesn't siphon off enough votes and get Bush back in.)
A Beautiful Comment
Over at The Smirking Chimp they posted my "Country in Crisis" piece, and someone left this comment:
"Remember that great scene from Jackie Brown, with Jackson and de Niro in the van? That's the situation on a global scale now: the rest of the world is sitting next to America and asking, in Samuel L. Jackson's voice, "What happened to you man? Your ass used to be so beautiful!" And America, like De Niro, has no answer."Beautiful.
Reagan Picture on Money
The wingnuts are proposing that Reagan's picture replace Hamilton's on the $10 bill.
I'm thinking it would be MUCH more appropriate to put Reagan's picture on T-Bills! After all, he printed about $4 TRILLION of them, didn't he?
I'm thinking it would be MUCH more appropriate to put Reagan's picture on T-Bills! After all, he printed about $4 TRILLION of them, didn't he?
Why THAT ad?
Take a look at the Right Wing Conspiracy ad (on the right there...) that Google for some reason puts at this site. Huh?
Update - Now it's Reagan ads.
One commenter points out that this could be construed as "incentivising" people to click on the ads. Don't click on the ads, because then the right-wing advertisers have to pay Seeing the Forest for the clicks.
Update - Now it's Reagan ads.
One commenter points out that this could be construed as "incentivising" people to click on the ads. Don't click on the ads, because then the right-wing advertisers have to pay Seeing the Forest for the clicks.
6/08/2004
Another Must-Read
The Choice This Year Is Between Empire and Democracy:
"When Attorney General William Wirt delivered Thomas Jefferson's eulogy on October 19, 1826 in the Hall of the U.S. House of Representatives, he noted how Jefferson believed in democracy, national humility, and abhorred empire. Jefferson well understood, Wirt noted, the danger of past empires as well as the dangerous possibility of a future president who may seize more power than the Constitution intended.There's more. Go read.
'The successful warrior, who had desolated whole empires for his own aggrandizement,' Wirt wrote about such a dangerous leader, 'the successful usurper of his country's rights and liberties, may have their hours of swelling pride, in which they may look back with a barbarous joy upon the triumph of their talents, and feast upon the adulation of the sycophants that surround them.'
In the next paragraph, however, Wirt cited Jefferson's certain knowledge that those who seek empire will not only see their nation's downfall, but their own internal spiritual destruction as well. '...but, night and silence come; and conscience takes her turn. The bloody field rises upon the startled imagination. The shades of the slaughtered innocent stalk in terrific procession before the couch. The agonizing cry of countless widows and orphans invades the ear. The bloody dagger of the assassin plays, in airy terror, before the vision.'
Empire, Jefferson believed, always ended in disaster, as the nations oppressed by empire invariably rebel. As Wirt summarized Jefferson's sentiments: 'Violated liberty lifts her avenging lance, and a down-trodden nation rises before them, in all the majesty of its wrath.'
Which brings us to today. The battle of the election of 2004 - from local races to the presidency - is fundamentally a battle of visions: Empire versus Democracy. "
skippy on ashcroft
skippy, on ashcroft's contempt of congress today, in you'll just have to trust us, we hate torture.
Worse and Worse - Country in Crisis
In Salon.com | The Reagan legacy, Rick Perlstein writes:
Nixon had to resign for things that Reagan picked up and did from day 1 without apology. Reagan, of course, instructed underlings to violate the law and lie to Congress about it. Bush I used parts of the government to obstruct the Iran/Contra investigations, then pardoned several criminals who had worked for him. And Iran/Contra -- and avoiding the mistakes that led to exposure -- was the model for the current Bush's first day in office - with this Bush this proudly hiring convicted (but pardoned by Dad) felons!
Elected Democrats and moderate Republicans keep letting far-Right conspirators off the hook, and failing to expose the true nature of their activities to the public. Perhaps this is because they honestly did not and do not recognize them for what they are. Some of Nixon's cronies went to jail -- none of Reagan/Bush I's. Worse, the Carter and Clinton administrations did not ask for a full accounting of the transgressions -- political and financial -- of the prior administrations. In a way, this signaled to the public to expect such activities as part of "business as usual." By allowing the Right to publicly get away with an "everybody does it" excuse, the legitimacy of our democratic form of government was eroded.
I believe that had Clinton recognized that the Republican Party has truly changed into a dangerous revolutionary movement intent on overthrowing our form of government, and taken action, purged the government of far-right ideologues and begun an investigation into his predecessor's political crimes as well as how money was siphoned out of the Treasury under Reagan and Bush, he would not have gone through the impeachment, and we would not be facing the national and international disaster we face now.
I think it is hard now to avoid seeing the true nature of the group that has taken over the Republican Party. The record is certainly clear, their intentions are clear, their activities are clear, and it's time to take a stand. After seizing control of the country by the narrowest of margins in 2000 the Republicans have illegally excluded Democrats and the public from almost all aspects of management of the government. They have positioned ideological agents throughout the departments, agencies and the courts. In one of their first acts in power they allowed companies like Enron to "harvest" the people of California and Oregon, and appointed FERC members would not do their job to stop this. Their tax cuts, that went to only a few, have bankrupted the country and spent our Social Security retirement money. They have handed out our country's natural resources, and given the right to pollute our air and water for profit to a few rich cronies. They have launched aggressive war in an imperialistic scheme to bring the Middle East's oil supplies under their control.
And they increasingly poison the public environment with lies. They are intentionally dividing the country right down the middle. Matt Stoller writes about what they are telling the public in their presidential campaign,
If Kerry does win this election AND take office, he has his work cut out for him -- there are some things to take care of right away -- if he expects to also govern the country. We simply MUST expose widely the Right's anti-democracy agenda. Crimes have been committed and this is not an occasion for a healing amnesty. We have to stop them once and for all. We need a complete financial accounting for the entire four years of Bush. Every single recipient of rigged no-bid contracts, tax break in exchange for "contributions", or any other corrupt activities should be prosecuted and put in jail to ensure that this does not happen should another right-wing administration take office.
Further, we need to implement SYSTEMIC changes to prevent anything like the "conservative movement" from happening again. This crisis has exposed the vulnerability of our system.
Let's look at it this way for a minute. Suppose that the intentions of the Bush people are entirely on the up-and-up. But looking at the way they have eroded accountability, oversight, and constitutional protections, suppose some OTHER people, with less-than-honorable intentions, examine these openings and see this as an opportunity to step in and seize power. The mechanisms for this are all in place, including the mechanisms to squash opposition and dissent. The Patriot Act, for example, allows the government to spy on anyone the President designates as an "enemy." And new technologies enable comprehensive tracking of a person's every action. We already have a precedent of Congress looking the other way and avoiding their oversight responsibilities no matter how extreme the transgression. We already have the precedent of the Justice Department covering up instead of investigating crimes. We already have the precedent of the Courts overruling law in favor of ideology.
Stauber and Rampton again,
"It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly. In 1964, observers horrified by Barry Goldwater pined for the sensible Robert Taft, the conservative leader of the 1950s. When Reagan was president, liberals spoke fondly of sweet old Goldwater."I think Republican administrations actually have been worse each time, moving farther and farther to the right as well as into greater illegalities. I think this reflects the extent to which their party has been increasingly taken over by this far-right, post-Bircher, Scaife-funded, fanatical cult-like corporate/Christian/libertarian "movement conservatism."
Nixon had to resign for things that Reagan picked up and did from day 1 without apology. Reagan, of course, instructed underlings to violate the law and lie to Congress about it. Bush I used parts of the government to obstruct the Iran/Contra investigations, then pardoned several criminals who had worked for him. And Iran/Contra -- and avoiding the mistakes that led to exposure -- was the model for the current Bush's first day in office - with this Bush this proudly hiring convicted (but pardoned by Dad) felons!
Elected Democrats and moderate Republicans keep letting far-Right conspirators off the hook, and failing to expose the true nature of their activities to the public. Perhaps this is because they honestly did not and do not recognize them for what they are. Some of Nixon's cronies went to jail -- none of Reagan/Bush I's. Worse, the Carter and Clinton administrations did not ask for a full accounting of the transgressions -- political and financial -- of the prior administrations. In a way, this signaled to the public to expect such activities as part of "business as usual." By allowing the Right to publicly get away with an "everybody does it" excuse, the legitimacy of our democratic form of government was eroded.
I believe that had Clinton recognized that the Republican Party has truly changed into a dangerous revolutionary movement intent on overthrowing our form of government, and taken action, purged the government of far-right ideologues and begun an investigation into his predecessor's political crimes as well as how money was siphoned out of the Treasury under Reagan and Bush, he would not have gone through the impeachment, and we would not be facing the national and international disaster we face now.
I think it is hard now to avoid seeing the true nature of the group that has taken over the Republican Party. The record is certainly clear, their intentions are clear, their activities are clear, and it's time to take a stand. After seizing control of the country by the narrowest of margins in 2000 the Republicans have illegally excluded Democrats and the public from almost all aspects of management of the government. They have positioned ideological agents throughout the departments, agencies and the courts. In one of their first acts in power they allowed companies like Enron to "harvest" the people of California and Oregon, and appointed FERC members would not do their job to stop this. Their tax cuts, that went to only a few, have bankrupted the country and spent our Social Security retirement money. They have handed out our country's natural resources, and given the right to pollute our air and water for profit to a few rich cronies. They have launched aggressive war in an imperialistic scheme to bring the Middle East's oil supplies under their control.
And they increasingly poison the public environment with lies. They are intentionally dividing the country right down the middle. Matt Stoller writes about what they are telling the public in their presidential campaign,
"In other words, even if a Democrat wins an election, it's just a prelude till his negatives can be driven up and a political castration opportunity appears.In The War at Home, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton write,
That this is happening without much comment reveals cracks in the foundation of the American political system. It's breaking down.
Legitimacy is the key to governance. If an authoritarian government isn't seen as legitimate, it must act incredibly harshly to sustain its rule, or it will fall. The legitimacy of a liberal democracy goes further than this; it relies on an acknowledgement that the opposition has a right to exist, and even, to oppose. When this assumption breaks down, when the loyal opposition finds itself considered treasonous, a slew of terrifying events is set in motion, and ultimately, liberal democracy fights back, or liberal democracy falls. We are in the midst of seeing this struggle play out."
The Republican party's hard right - "movement conservatives," as they like to call themselves - hold views and long-term objectives that are considerably to the right of mainstream public opinion, but they had managed to maneuver themselves into a position of control over nearly every branch of the American government. As we will explore, politics for them is not a debate. It is, quite literally, a "war by other means."We have to realize that we are dealing with an organized revolutionary conspiracy to seize power, enrich the few, and subject us to an ideological/theocratic/imperialist dictatorship. They often describe THEMSELVES as being modeled on the old Communist Party and their methods for infiltrating and seizing power.
During the 2000 presidential and congressional elections, every Republican member of the U.S. Congress received a free pamphlet, compliments of Congressman Tom DeLay, the party's majority whip. Written by conservative activist David Horowitz, the pamphlet was called The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win. It came with an endorsement on the cover by Karl Rove, the senior advisor to then-candidate George W. Bush. According to Rove, The Art of Political War was "a perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield from an experienced warrior." In addition to DeLay's gift to members of Congress, the Heritage Foundation, one of the leading conservative think tanks in Washington, found Horowitz's advice so impressive that it sent another 2,300 copies to conservative activists around the country.
True to its title, The Art of Political War argues that "Politics is war conducted by other means. In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability. ... In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails." Moreover, "Politics is a war of position. In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency as possible compatible with your principles, while defining your opponent as the enemy whenever you can. The act of defining combatants is analogous to the military concept of choosing the terrain of battle. Choose the terrain that makes the fight as easy for you as possible."
"You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate," he explains in The Art of Political War. "You can do it only by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.'"This is an emergency and we must recognize it as such. These people will go to all costs to succeed, including fomenting civil war.
If Kerry does win this election AND take office, he has his work cut out for him -- there are some things to take care of right away -- if he expects to also govern the country. We simply MUST expose widely the Right's anti-democracy agenda. Crimes have been committed and this is not an occasion for a healing amnesty. We have to stop them once and for all. We need a complete financial accounting for the entire four years of Bush. Every single recipient of rigged no-bid contracts, tax break in exchange for "contributions", or any other corrupt activities should be prosecuted and put in jail to ensure that this does not happen should another right-wing administration take office.
Further, we need to implement SYSTEMIC changes to prevent anything like the "conservative movement" from happening again. This crisis has exposed the vulnerability of our system.
Let's look at it this way for a minute. Suppose that the intentions of the Bush people are entirely on the up-and-up. But looking at the way they have eroded accountability, oversight, and constitutional protections, suppose some OTHER people, with less-than-honorable intentions, examine these openings and see this as an opportunity to step in and seize power. The mechanisms for this are all in place, including the mechanisms to squash opposition and dissent. The Patriot Act, for example, allows the government to spy on anyone the President designates as an "enemy." And new technologies enable comprehensive tracking of a person's every action. We already have a precedent of Congress looking the other way and avoiding their oversight responsibilities no matter how extreme the transgression. We already have the precedent of the Justice Department covering up instead of investigating crimes. We already have the precedent of the Courts overruling law in favor of ideology.
Stauber and Rampton again,
The likelihood that those powers will be abused has increased, moreover, as the conservative movement accuses its ideological adversaries of "treason," "terrorism" and "un-Americanism," threatening long-standing traditions of tolerance and diversity.It is time for those who think this is the OLD Republican Party to take their head out of the sand and see that things have changed. Turn on the radio and listen to Limbaugh or Hannity for ten minutes -- yes they ARE the mainstream of the Republican Party now -- and you'll KNOW that the country is crisis.
Purpose of Iran/Contra
I'm tired of hearing the Right apply noble (to them) intentions to the Iran/Contra perpetators. The COVER STORY was that they used the money to supply the Contras. Whatever else it was, this was a typical corrupt right-wing scheme to grab the money and run.
Lawrence Walsh was the independent investigator for the Iran/Contra case. His final report is available here. It is well worth browsing.
On Ollie North:
General Richard Secord was Ollie North's partner-in-crime. From Walsh's report:
Lawrence Walsh was the independent investigator for the Iran/Contra case. His final report is available here. It is well worth browsing.
On Ollie North:
North stood trial beginning in February 1989 on 12 counts. On May 4, 1989, he was found guilty of three counts, including aiding and abetting obstruction of Congress, shredding and altering official documents, and accepting an illegal gratuity from Secord.Remember, these were the things they could PROVE. But their motivation for bringing financial enrichment charges was the pattern they saw of diversions of cash for private use. Of $16 million, only $3.8 million made it to the Contras. And this does not count another $10 million that the Sultan of Brunei wired to North's operation, but was diverted to another Swiss account. The cover story for that was that someone transposed two numbers on the wire transfer and the money "disappeared."
[. . .]
Count Ten: Receipt of an illegal gratuity, charging North with accepting a home-security system paid for by Secord, in exchange for official acts performed by North.
Count Eleven: Conversion of traveler's checks, charging that North from April 1985 to July 1986 personally used $4,300 in traveler's checks from approximately $90,000 in checks given to him by Calero for hostage-release and contra-related expenses.
General Richard Secord was Ollie North's partner-in-crime. From Walsh's report:
One of Secord's central purposes in establishing and carrying out the operations of the Enterprise was the accumulation of untaxed wealth in secret overseas accounts. Testimony and records obtained from the Enterprise's Swiss financial manager, Willard Zucker, show that Secord personally received at least $2 million from his participation in the Enterprise during 1985 and 1986, that he set up secret accounts to conceal his untaxed income, and that he later lied and encouraged others to lie to keep it concealed.I remember Secord testifying that he bought a Ferrari...
Secord was indicted in March 1988 for conspiring with North, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter and Hakim to defraud the U.S. Government of money and services, and for theft of Government property. After the trials were severed and the main conspiracy counts dropped due to problems with classified information, the Grand Jury in April 1989 charged Secord with nine additional felonies as a result of his false testimony before Congress in 1987.
Secord pleaded guilty on November 8, 1989, to the felony charge of lying to Congress about illegal gratuities he provided to North.1 Secord entered his plea five days before he was to be tried on 12 felony charges. As part of his plea, Secord promised to cooperate in the pending trials and ongoing investigation of Independent Counsel.
An Update
I forgot to mention 100,000 killed in Guatemala in the post "Gaddafi Regrets Reagan Died Without Facing Trial".
Talk vs Action
Tired of hearing right-wing lies about how Clinton didn't do anything to stop terrorism?
Take a look at this:
Compare that to the current administration's treatment of classified intelligence, AND their success against terrorism. Remember, 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH.
Take a look at this:
"However, Clarke says Clinton chose not to attack Iran but ordered an 'intelligence operation' that seemed to have worked.So Clinton actually DID something, AND KEPT QUIET ABOUT IT, even now, because it was a classified intelligence operation. He has chosen the good of the country over the good of his political party.
'Following the intelligence operation, and perhaps because of it and the serious U.S. threats, among other reasons, Iran ceased terrorism against the U.S.,' Clarke wrote. 'War with Iran was averted.'"
Compare that to the current administration's treatment of classified intelligence, AND their success against terrorism. Remember, 9/11 occurred ON HIS WATCH.
What He Says
What he says here.
More coming. I've been thinking about this for some time, and working on a piece for weeks. Great minds think alike. Or maybe it's that the obvious becomes obvious.
Even if Kerry wins, we have a huge fight on our hands, and we'd better all realize it!
Watch your backs.
More coming. I've been thinking about this for some time, and working on a piece for weeks. Great minds think alike. Or maybe it's that the obvious becomes obvious.
Even if Kerry wins, we have a huge fight on our hands, and we'd better all realize it!
Watch your backs.
6/07/2004
666
A comment to a post below reminded me of one of my favorite Reagan facts.
RONALD WILSON REAGAN
Number of letters: 6 6 6
Anagram - INSANE ANGLO WARLORD
And, lest we forget, after he left office a group of rich supporters BOUGHT HIM A RESIDENCE, and it was at 666 St. Cloud Road. Nancy had the address changed to 668.
Speaking of rich supporters, Reagan had what was called a "kitchen cabinet." Not long after his election one of the members of this group was found ... orgy scene ... model killed with baseball bat ... oh, just read about it here.
RONALD WILSON REAGAN
Number of letters: 6 6 6
Anagram - INSANE ANGLO WARLORD
And, lest we forget, after he left office a group of rich supporters BOUGHT HIM A RESIDENCE, and it was at 666 St. Cloud Road. Nancy had the address changed to 668.
Speaking of rich supporters, Reagan had what was called a "kitchen cabinet." Not long after his election one of the members of this group was found ... orgy scene ... model killed with baseball bat ... oh, just read about it here.
Reagan
Headlines over at Drudge:
Randi Rhodes just said, "He lived long enough to not be our worst president ever."
I remember that Reagan's first week in office involved taking down the solar panels that President Carter had installed on the White House roof, and pardoning the FBI agents who had been convicted of illegal activities involving spying on, intimidating and breaking into the houses of Nixon's political opponents.
Update - More memories -- When Reagan was inaugurated President the TV showed a split screen, with the hostages that the Iranian government was holding being released about ten minutes after he was sworn in -- just about the right amount of time for someone now working officially for the President of the United States to sign something with the full authority of the U.S. Government. And we started shipping weapons to Iran about two weeks later.
REAGAN HATERS UNITE: PALAST: 'KILLER, COWARD, CON-MAN GOOD RIDDANCE, GIPPER ... MORE PROOF ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG'...I report, you decide. (Maybe Hitchens isn't as bad as all that after all...)
HITCHENS: 'A cruel and stupid lizard'...
RALL: 'I'm sure he's turning crispy brown right about now'...
Randi Rhodes just said, "He lived long enough to not be our worst president ever."
I remember that Reagan's first week in office involved taking down the solar panels that President Carter had installed on the White House roof, and pardoning the FBI agents who had been convicted of illegal activities involving spying on, intimidating and breaking into the houses of Nixon's political opponents.
Update - More memories -- When Reagan was inaugurated President the TV showed a split screen, with the hostages that the Iranian government was holding being released about ten minutes after he was sworn in -- just about the right amount of time for someone now working officially for the President of the United States to sign something with the full authority of the U.S. Government. And we started shipping weapons to Iran about two weeks later.
Wingnut Letter
Got this in the e-mail today:
"obviously you don't know anything about business" He's right. Oh, wait, I did run a corporation for over ten years, and was recently VP Marketing and Sales for a tech company. But he is right, except for that.
"Look at the historical tax rates and compare it to recessions and depressions here in the US." Well, I have, and, obviously, he hasn't, because he would discover that higher tax rates at the top coincides with periods of high GNP growth. Probably that is because we have a consumer economy, and more money in the hands of consumers means higher growth. And putting more of the tax burden on corporations and the rich means more money in the hands of average people. Remember, in 1993 Clinton RAISED taxes on the rich while cutting them on the low end. What followed was the greatest economic expansion in our history. And Bush CUT taxes on the rich while raising them on everyone else by cutting services, and what followed has been a long period of zero or slow job growth and massive concentration of wealth to the top few percent.
If I as a businessman have more money not taxable, DUH, I spend it on investments which hire more people who get paychecks and guess what idiot..... they then pay more taxes. Actually these businessMEN ship the money to bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, lay off their workers and hire in lawless countries where they only have to pay a dime a day. Smart businessWOMEN invest when there is DEMAND, and do so regardless of the taxes. And, even if they DON'T have a ton of cash they GO GET IT when there is demand. And, by the way, taxes are not a cost. Costs are deducted.
As for his "joke" I have a math degree, and clearly he doesn't. But aside from that, his line "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore" implies that the rich will just leave the country after taking what they can get from it. Now THAT'S a patriotic joke.
But let's just sum it up in simple terms. In the 20's we cut taxes on the rich and corproations, wealth became concentrated and we had the depression. Then we raised taxes on the rich and came out of the depression. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and we had the greatest economic and job expansion in our history. Bush cut taxes on the rich, no jobs and massive debt.
Update - I received the following after informing the writer that I had responded on the blog
You are a nut and belong in a nuthouse.... obviously you don't know anything about business or economics. Look at the historical tax rates and compare it to recessions and depressions here in the US. By overtaxing the people, it only creates less investment. God where did you go to school and how can someone be this dumb in a land like America. If I as a businessman have more money not taxable, DUH, I spend it on investments which hire more people who get paychecks and guess what idiot..... they then pay more taxes. Take you anti liberal, anti American left wing communist thought to another country. We have had enough of you and the garbage you throw out. Academically if you cannot understand maybe the joke below will give you some foresight.OK, violating the first rule of Seeing the Forest, I'm going to go through the trees.
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for
even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
"obviously you don't know anything about business" He's right. Oh, wait, I did run a corporation for over ten years, and was recently VP Marketing and Sales for a tech company. But he is right, except for that.
"Look at the historical tax rates and compare it to recessions and depressions here in the US." Well, I have, and, obviously, he hasn't, because he would discover that higher tax rates at the top coincides with periods of high GNP growth. Probably that is because we have a consumer economy, and more money in the hands of consumers means higher growth. And putting more of the tax burden on corporations and the rich means more money in the hands of average people. Remember, in 1993 Clinton RAISED taxes on the rich while cutting them on the low end. What followed was the greatest economic expansion in our history. And Bush CUT taxes on the rich while raising them on everyone else by cutting services, and what followed has been a long period of zero or slow job growth and massive concentration of wealth to the top few percent.
If I as a businessman have more money not taxable, DUH, I spend it on investments which hire more people who get paychecks and guess what idiot..... they then pay more taxes. Actually these businessMEN ship the money to bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, lay off their workers and hire in lawless countries where they only have to pay a dime a day. Smart businessWOMEN invest when there is DEMAND, and do so regardless of the taxes. And, even if they DON'T have a ton of cash they GO GET IT when there is demand. And, by the way, taxes are not a cost. Costs are deducted.
As for his "joke" I have a math degree, and clearly he doesn't. But aside from that, his line "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore" implies that the rich will just leave the country after taking what they can get from it. Now THAT'S a patriotic joke.
But let's just sum it up in simple terms. In the 20's we cut taxes on the rich and corproations, wealth became concentrated and we had the depression. Then we raised taxes on the rich and came out of the depression. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and we had the greatest economic and job expansion in our history. Bush cut taxes on the rich, no jobs and massive debt.
Update - I received the following after informing the writer that I had responded on the blog
:"I believe Cuba and China are still communist... you may want to move.."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)