4/15/2003

The Goldman Environmental Prize

I attended the Goldman Environmental Prize ceremony last night in San Francisco. I was planning to write about it when I got home last night, but it was late and I was, frankly, somewhat inebriated.

From the Goldman Prize website: "The Goldman Environmental Prize is given each year to six environmental heroes - one from each of six continental regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Island Nations, North America and South/Central America." Think of it as the Nobel Prize for environmental achievement.

It was an impressive ceremony in San Francisco's War Memorial Opera House, followed by a reception at City Hall. (Yes, Mayor Willie Brown does wear very, very nice suits.) I have to tell you that I never before been to a reception where the people ran out before the food and bar. The smoked salmon didn't even run out!

The ceremony was hosted by a previous Goldman Prize winner, Jane Akre. If you follow that link and read some of the stories you will learn that she was an investigative reporter fired by Fox TV for refusing to read a script that contained intentional falsehoods favorable to Monsanto Corp. A Fox network attorney had placed false information in a story about bovine growth hormone, or BGH, manufactured by Monsanto. The initial report by Akre said that medical experts had found a number of potential problems from the use of this genetially-engineered product. The report that aired said that BGH was the most-tested product in history. Akre refused to read this script. Initially she was offered a six-figure payoff to keep her mouth shut. (Remember that -- reporters are offered six-figure payoffs to lie about corporations.) She refused and was fired. She sued, won, but recently lost on appeal. The appeals court ruled that it is OK for Fox to intentionally mislead their viewers. (Remember that, too.) A short video explaining what happened to her is available here, scroll down and click on her name in the 2001 video clips.

Nancy Pelosi talked for a bit. She is a very impressive and pleasant person.

Please visit the website to read about this year's six winners and why they won. (Click on each of the six photos.) Also go here to see short videos about each. They are quite an impressive group of people. I'll write a bit about the American Prize winner Julia Bonds, who is fighting to stop mountaintop removal coal mining. Mountaintop removal is just that - they take the entire top off of a mountain. The waste (all of the mountain that is not coal) fills up what had been valleys and streams, ruining the local water. All of this done by a bullying big corporation that pushes everyone around, forces them to move from their homes, and pays off local politicians. From a press release describing her achievement:
In 2001, Bonds and her family became the last residents to evacuate from her own hometown of Marfork Hollow where six generations of her family had lived. Marfork had been virtually destroyed by mountaintop removal mining, which involves completely blasting off the tops of mountains so that huge machines can mine thin seams of coal. Mountaintop removal mining completely annihilates streams and forests, and causes extensive flooding and blasting damage to homes. The pollution from mining and the toxic chemicals used in the preparation of coal for market have been linked to rising asthma rates and other serious respiratory ailments, particularly among children, including Bonds’ grandson. Residents who live near the mining blast zones also suffer from traumatic stress. Slurry dams thick with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury and lead routinely overflow into watersheds, contaminate drinking water and drive toxic sludge into residents’ backyards. As a result, thousands of local residents have been driven out of their homes.

Mountaintop removal mining has also been catastrophic for Appalachia’s waterways. Coal companies routinely dump the tons of mountaintop debris into nearby valleys and streams. Today, more than 1,000 miles of Appalachian headwater streams have been completely buried and 300,000 acres of the world’s most diverse temperate hardwood forests have been obliterated by so-called “valley fill.”

Bonds, who previously had worked as a waitress and manager at Pizza Hut and for convenience stores, now devotes 90 hours a week to protect Appalachia and the people who live there from the ravages of mountaintop removal mining. The catalyst for her activism, she says, was the day her grandson stood in a stream in Coal River Valley with his fists full of dead fish and asked, “What’s wrong with these fish?”

Since then, her dedication and success as an activist and organizer have made her one of the nation’s leading community activists confronting an industry practice that has been called “strip mining on steroids.”

Bonds’ primary nemesis is Massey Energy, the nation’s fifth largest coal producer and the company responsible for the destruction of Marfork and many other Appalachian towns. Richmond, Virginia-based Massey, has one of the worst environmental and safety records in the country. In 2000, it was responsible for the worst environmental disaster in Southeastern history when a slurry spill released over 250 million gallons of coal sludge in Martin County, Kentucky. Massey currently runs numerous mountaintop removal strip mines throughout Appalachia and holds a number of pending permits to mine along the Coal River Valley.

Operating from a small storefront on a shoestring budget, Bonds has scored a number of important victories despite enormous industry opposition. Foremost among them is the critical partnership she forged with the United Mine Workers Union over overweight coal trucks. Coal trucks routinely bearing twice the legal load barrel down narrow, steep highways and through towns, endangering drivers, beating up the roads and cracking house foundations. The monster trucks have been responsible for fourteen deaths in the past two years, including a brother and sister who were crushed to death when a coal truck forced their vehicle into another oncoming truck. Thanks to the mineworkers’ union and community pressure, Bonds and other activists filled a lawsuit against coal operators that will force companies to haul safe and legal loads. Bonds is currently working with activists to launch a national grassroots campaign that asks people to write postcards to the governor of West Virginia pledging that they will not visit the state until outsized coal trucks are banned.

In a testament to her vigilant monitoring of mining-related violations and advocacy efforts, Bonds has also been instrumental in winning important concessions from the State Mining Board, which recently imposed a 30-day suspension on a polluting Massey mine and set tougher protections for local communities against mine blasting.

These victories have come at a price to her personal safety. Bonds routinely receives threatening, anonymous phone calls that intensify whenever she plans a protest. She and other activists have been threatened by armed security guards on Massey’s payroll when they show visitors, including journalists, sites that have been devastated by mining.

As Massey pours hundreds of thousands of dollars into an ad campaign to whitewash its image in mining country, Bonds is organizing faith groups and local activists to picket Massey’s annual stockholders meeting set for mid-April. In an attempt to avoid the public outcry about their operations, Massey refuses to divulge the location or date of their shareholder meeting until the last moment. Bonds is also pushing for public hearings about the Bush Administration’s final Environmental Impact Statement on mountaintop removal mining. Because of the involvement of Steven Griles, a former mining industry lobbyist turned second in command at the Department of Interior, activists doubt the statement will paint an accurate portrait of the real threats and costs of mountaintop removal.

Bonds is also galvanizing grassroots response to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on mountaintop removal, which was issued on January 29, 2003. The ruling, based on an appeal brought by the Bush Administration, overturned a landmark federal court ruling that banned mountaintop removal mining on the grounds that it violates the Clean Water Act. Since the new ruling, West Virginia has been bombarded with new mountaintop removal mining permits. Bonds and other local citizens are fighting these permits in the courts.

Bonds is fighting the Bush administration on a number of fronts as President Bush continues to support a national energy plan that is far too reliant on continued coal production. His victory in the presidential elections was due in part to his upset in West Virginia, which has been credited to the efforts of James H. Harless, a local timber and coal magnate who was awarded a spot on Bush’s transition task force on energy and who now sits on Massey’s board of directors.

"Julia is lifting up a region of the U.S. often forgotten by the rest of the country," said Carolyn Johnson, staff director of the Citizens Coal Council. "Julia has figured out a way to communicate the message of what's happening to this area. She brings in politicians and other activists to see the effects of mountaintop removal mining. Julia knows the risks of doing this work; she's constantly threatened. But she knows that she is giving people living in the coalfields voice and power nationwide."

“When powerful people pursue profits at the expense of human rights and our environment, they have failed as leaders,” Bonds has said. “Responsible citizens must step forward, not just to point the way, but to lead he way to a better world.”
Julia Bonds gave a powerful acceptance speech. She is an excellent speaker. I hope that she runs for the Senate. Sen. Byrd is very old and is likely to retire. She was a waitress and she should be a Senator. Julia Bonds is clearly the right person for that job!

4/14/2003

The Liar President II

Just came across this, U.S. Cold Shoulder Likely for Iraq War Opponents, which contains this:
A day after the younger Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien put off a planned May 5 meeting in Canada -- citing the demands of Iraq and denying tensions over Canada's opposition to the war -- the White House said the president would host "strong ally and close friend" Prime Minister John Howard of Australia at his Texas ranch May 2-3.
The liar.

The Liar President

Liar, Liar, over at The American Prospect. Excerpt:
It is no exaggeration to say that lying has become Bush's signature as president.

The pattern is now well established. Soothing rhetoric -- about compassionate conservatism, about how much money the "average" American worker will get through the White House tax program, about prescription-drug benefits -- is simply at odds with what Bush's policies actually do. Last month Bush promised to enhance Medicaid; his actual policy would effectively end it as a federal entitlement program.

More distressing even than the president's lies, though, is the public's apparent passivity. Bush just seems to get away with it. The post-September 11 effect and the Iraq war distract attention, but there's more to it. Are we finally paying the price for three decades of steadily eroding democracy? Is Bush benefiting from the echo chamber of a right-wing press that repeats the White House line until it starts sounding like the truth? Or does the complicity of the press help to lull the public and reinforce the president's lies?

One thing is clear: If a Democrat, say, Bill Clinton, engaged in Bush-scale dishonesty, the press would be all over him. In the spirit of rekindling public outrage, here are just some of the president's lies.
Gotta go read it to see what they say about the particulars.

Nation As Person Metaphore

Please read Metaphor and War, Again, By George Lakoff

Syria Next

Yes, Syria really does appear to be next.

The Secret Cheney Energy Task Force

A question -- was the secret Cheney Energy Task Force a planning session for the invasion of Iraq? Were the invited corporations placing orders for particular buildings,bridges, etc. to be destroyed by bombing, and was Cheney parceling out rebuilding contracts in exchange for campaign donations or other compensation?

Badges?

From this NY Times story (for the next 30 days, then you're on your own) U.S. May Have to Allow Others to Inspect Iraqi Arms:
But they added that the White House, which has resisted help from the United Nations in the search for weapons, may decide to ignore such legalities.
The Bush Doctrine, stated simply: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!"

4/13/2003

Tikrit

How many of you have been following Back-in-Iraq 2.0? I've been reading about Tikrit:
The fact of the matter is that Tikrit is “hot” as the journos here say. It is not “fine” as I thought it might be from CNN’s early footage. A Kurdish journalist and his crew that I’ve become friendly with were chased by men in black in black sedans later in the afternoon when they got within a few kilometers of the entrance of the city. Fedayeen. From Mustafa’s description of his pursuers, they sound like James Bond villains.
James Bond villains.

Keep In Mind

Keep in mind that Iran attacked Iraq with gas during their war, and Iraq borders Iran and they remain hostile. Because of this gas masks and decontamination gear would necessarily be standard equipment for Iraq's military. When you read about discoveries of Iraqi gas masks, decontamination facilities and other precautions it does not necessarily follow that Iraq was preparing to use gas.

I am not saying that Iraq did or did not have these weapons, I am pointing out that discoveries of chemical weapons gear does not necessarily mean they had or were going to use these weapons. Our forces also had gas masks and protective gear.

4/11/2003

Free Mike Hawash!

I posted this the other day, but the way I posted it ("You Could Be Next!") might have diminished its importance.

Please go visit the Free Mike Hawash! site.

Trauma

I've been thinking about our soldiers. It is unavoidable that for years they will be thinking about and reacting to the horrible death and destruction they have seen and/or participated in. Not just the inevitable civilian casualties but also the Iraqi soldiers that we killed and injured by the thousands. This will have a traumatic effect on a human being.

Right now most of our soldiers are certainly pumped up, proud, thinking that they have gone on an important mission to protect the country and their loved ones from the terrible threat posed by Iraq to our national security. Thinking they have won a great and important victory to protect us and the world. Thinking that they have avenged the September 11 attack.

But one day sooner or later many of them are going to realize that Iraq did not attack us on September 11, and that if Iraq even has any weapons of mass destruction they did not threaten the United States. And many will realize that a country that could fall in three weeks certainly posed no military threat to us. And they will read about the lucrative construction and oil contracts Bush's buddies and campaign donors are getting.

How will they react? Back in January I wrote about a piece I had read that discussed the role of 'cognitive dissonance' in the public's support for Bush. What happens when the conditions for that dissonance fade? Will people feel tricked? Or will they require further dissonance in their thinking to avoid facing how they have been used and the feelings that will trigger? Either way, how will that play out? Will they need to become fanatical right wingers to justify how they were used and the damage it has done to them? Will they turn on those who sent them there? Will they withdraw from participating in our democracy?

4/10/2003

Winning

tendentious, on winning.

Friday Update - I'm having an "Instant Message" conversation with the author of tendentious: (My end of this might be edited to make me look literate.)
tendentious: i was thinking of elaborations of my idea -- robert blake hires mike tyson, who proves his complete innocense by ko-ing the LA asst da in 1.8 seconds!

Forest: That is really good. That is a REALLY good approach!!! Do it.

tendentious: missed my chance. you can't retell a joke.

Forest: Yes, you can. It's a blog. You can do anything you want.

Forest: You can even post it as an update to the original post

Forest: OJ certainly WAS innocent -- HE WON!

Forest: In fact, maybe I'll update the "Winning" post that points to you, saying OJ WAS right - he WON.

tendentious: exactly. but his innocense would have been more obvious to the commentators if johnny cochran had decked whats-her-name!

Forest: Can I add what you just wrote - if you aren't going to use it?

tendentious: you thief! but if you can do it, i guess you are NOT A THIEF!

Forest: BINGO!

tendentious: as long as you add this last bit.

tendentious: go for it

tendentious: describe our conversation.

tendentious: except for where you offer to blow me.

Forest: blow me
skippy - Notice how he avoids using capital letters to start sentences and proper nouns? Of course, he can steal it thanks to The Bush Doctrine: getting away with stealing it proves he originated it.

Republicans Then and Now

How many readers are familiar with President Dwight D. Eisenhower? (How many younger readers know we had a President Eisenhower?) Eisenhower was the first Republican President since Hoover, and he is worth learning about.

Here are some Eisenhower quotes.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity." Canadian Club. Ottawa. Canada January 10. 1946

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." "The Chance for Peace" Address April 16. 1953

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it." TV Talk with Prime Minister Macmillan August 31. 1959
And then there is his "Farewell Address" of January 17, 1961, just before leaving the Presidency. It is worthwhile to take the time to read the entire address, but here are some excerpts:
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Eisenhower was a great leader who cared about our country and the world and the future of both -- rather than focusing just on the short-term gains of his political party. He warned of the consequences of "unwarranted influence" of a "military-industrial complex." How the Republicans have changed. Now Eisenhower's party is the military-industrial complex, and we see the consequences of the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" he warned us about.

Republicans Still At It

This story in the Washington Post describes Wyoming Republican Representative Barbara Cubin's remark that, "One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean that if you go into a black community you can't sell any guns to any black person?"

Right. All black people are drug addicts.

So, naturally, North Carolina Democratic Representative Melvin Watt said the remarks were offensive to black people and demanded they be "taken down" from the record, meaning they are inappropriate for House debate.

So how did the vote turn out? From the story, In a largely party-line vote, the GOP-controlled House voted 227 to 195 to uphold the chair's ruling that the remark fell within House rules.

So, even after the Trent Lott episode, Republicans still are willing to go on the record with a vote that saying all Black people are drug addicts is "appropriate." Great. Republicans never forget who butters their bread: The South shall rise again! Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Welfare Cadillacs. Welfare mothers have babies so they can get an extra $25 per month. States Rights. Etc. Heard it all before -- sick of it.

4/09/2003

Scoobie Explains Bennett

Please read The Truth about William Bennett, over at Scoobie Davis Online. To explain Bennett he does a bit of explaining of Moon as well. (Until links are working, just scroll to it. I'll fix the link later.)

"Reasonable" Democrats, Read This.

Tomasky Nails It. In Rupert Redux How the media magnate continues to take advantage of "reasonable" Democrats. Michael Tomasky shows just one example of how "reasonable" Democrats paved the way for unreasonable right wingers to stomp them. In the 1990s Rupert Murdoch needed to obtain a waiver allowing him to own the New York Post along with a local television station.
And to get the waiver, he needed backing from Democrats and liberal institutions. He needed Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), who chaired the relevant committee at the time. He needed Mario Cuomo, then New York's Democratic governor, to help behind the scenes and to speak publicly about the importance of diverse viewpoints. And he needed major concessions from the paper's unions. This was March. Phone lines were worked furiously; one thing led to another, and by July, Murdoch had the players right where he wanted them.
He got the waiver. Then a few years later many Democrats helped pass the 1996 Telecommunications Act which largely got rid of cross-ownership rules and helped build the Murdoch-Fox empire. And how did Murdoch repay those Democrats?
Back when Hillary Clinton was running for Senate, a research assistant and I undertook a study. We looked at the unsigned editorials and the pieces by staff columnists (not those by guest op-ed columnists) of all three New York City dailies and asked, How have these papers and their writers assessed her candidacy?
...
Results? The Times ran 24 favorable pieces, 25 neutral and 26 negative. The Daily News ran 19 positive, nine neutral and 23 negative. And the Post?

Seven positive, 17 neutral. . .and 212 negative. And believe me, we were being generous with that seven.

There's a lesson in this, and in the whole tale, for our side.
But I'll make you go read what that lesson is.

4/08/2003

Internet Joke

This just came in the e-mail; you probably already saw it:
Top 10 Reasons Dorothy Was Greeted As A Liberator
...And Our Army Wasn't

10. The Wicked Witch of the East actually HAD weapons of mass destruction.
9. Rebuilding contracts awarded locally to Lullaby League and Lollipop Guild.
8. Dorothy apologized.
7. Evil oppressor legally verified as "really most sincerely dead" rather than "maybe dead."
6. Dorothy got it that she wasn't in Kansas any more.
5. Did not install Toto as interim governor of Munchkinland.
4. Went home as soon as possible.
3. No interest in Munchkinland's natural resources.
2. Dorothy wasn't taking orders from the one with no brain.
1. No collateral damage.

For Page 16

You'll see this on page 16 of tomorrow's paper.

A Comment At No War Blog

Here is a comment I left in response to the discussion after my recent post at No War Blog. (Of course, edited to make me look better.)

"Miltiades" is an Iraqi-American who left comments arguing that the war is good because it gets rid of Saddam:
DO NOT TELL TO ME WHAT OUR PEOPLES HURT CAUSED FROM IF YOU DO NOT LIVE THERE! I KNOW I SAY I SPEAK NO MORE. YOU ASUME YOU KNOW IRAQ. YOU DO NOT KNOW. SADDAM HAS KILLED MUCH PEOPLES IN IRAQ NOT AMERICA. AMERICA DID NOT TAKE OIL FIRST TIME AND I DO NOT THINK THEY TAKE OIL THIS TIME. MAKE NO MISTAKE SADDAM HUSSEIN IS VERY VERY EVIL MAN. HE CARES NOT FOR THE PEOPLES OF IRAQ ONLY HIS OWN POWER. IF YOU ARE NOT BORN IN IRAQ DO NOT TELL ME WHAT IRAQ IS LIKE AND WHO KILLS. LETTING SADDAM HUSSEIN STAY WILL ONLY CONTINUE IRAQI SUFERING. MY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SUFERING TO LONG. AMERICANS ARE ENDING SUFERING. MY FAMILY SAYS THIS TO ME. I DO NOT CARE WHO SADDAM WORKED FOR BEFORE KILLING IRAQI PEOPLES. INTERNET WILL TELL YOU ALL YOU WANT EVEN LIES. NO POLITICIAN IS ALL HONEST. THAT IS WHY I AM NO POLITICIAN. DO NOT TELL ME ABOUT MY HOME IF YOU HAVE NOT LIVED THERE. THAT IS ALL I WILL SAY NOW. THANK YOU FOR CHANCE TO SAY THESE WORDS.
Miltiades has a point. The "liberate the people of Iraq" justification for the war might have only come along recently, and is only a pretext for something they were going to do anyway (or perhaps we would have heard about it sooner than March), but it is VERY powerful. The focus groups that came up with this did their job well. Good work, General Rove!

No one can disagree that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good outcome of this war. It is almost worth the war all by itself. But it is not worth destroying the entire structure of international law, the UN, NATO, as well as the relationships between the U.S. and the rest of the world, radicalizing Muslims and increasing the terrorist threat worldwide, along with all the other consequences of the war as conducted by Bush.

Of course, if you look at the outcome of our adventure in Afghanistan, you see that the slogan and the actual intentions are not related in any way. In fact, in his last budget Bush included ZERO dollars for rebuilding Afghanistan and working toward a democratic government. He just ignored Afghanistan and everything he had promised and got away with it.

But, again, getting rid of Saddam WILL be one outcome of this war, and people like Miltiades and his family will benefit from this no matter what comes next (assuming his family isn't bombed before the war ends.)

And I only wish him the best!

Greeley

Read about Greeley. And while you're there, read more Pedantry.

Kill The Leader?

Thinking about how this war is being conducted, one thing occurred to me -- the effect on people under a certain age, who don't know how things have been done in the past. For example, for a large number of people under a certain age, they must think that war is about trying to kill (or sometimes capture, like Noriega) the leader of the enemy country by blowing up his house, civilian government buildings, even apartment buildings or restaraunts he might be in.

Who Is Our Justice System For?

Nathan Newman writes about the Supreme Court today ruling that large lawsuit punitive damage awards for corporate crimes are "excessive," after recently ruling that a person receiving a life sentence for stealing $153 worth of goods is justified.

4/07/2003

Prosperity?

SOMEthing is just around the corner, but maybe it isn't prosperity.
WASHINGTON - Confronting new fears of recession, the Federal Reserve is refining an emergency economic rescue plan that includes further interest rate cuts and billions of dollars in extra cash for the banking system.

The Fed's effort would be aimed at pulling the country out of a nosedive that has seen 465,000 jobs evaporate in just the past two months, raising fears among economists that the weak recovery from the 2001 recession is in danger of stalling out altogether.
Great.
Because of this, some economists believe the Fed will not wait until its May 6 meeting to put its plan into effect, opting to cut the federal funds rate through an emergency conference call, possibly as soon as this week.

However, other analysts argue that the Fed will likely wait, hoping that the favorable tide of the war will bolster markets in coming weeks and restore confidence.

"I think they will hold off cutting rates again to see if an early, successful conclusion to the war has the desired effect everybody is hoping it will have," said Zandi.
Right, the war will end "early" and everything will be roses. Never mind record levels of public, corporate and private debt. Never mind record low saving rates. Never mind record concentration of wealth. Never mind that all the new jobs are exported to other countries.

Tax cuts for the rich, program cuts for the rest of us, and wars -- all laying on a bed of propaganda to keep the sheep in the corral so they can be sheared. Yep, that's a real prescription for prosperity, all right.

4/06/2003

Jobs In A World With High Unemployment

A friend sent me this e-mail she had received:
Our company is developing web sides for several companies last four years in
Bangladesh and wants to explore selling Bangladesh website development services to the whole world. We are offering to recruit our company as the web development part of your company.

We think if you make a business relationship with us you will be able to make more profit than what you do now or you can start a new web service business to your country.

We can say that our service charge is the lowest but the quality is very high.

Property of a Corporate Package:
---------------------------------------------------
This package contains the following features:
=> Home Page
=> 9 Normal Link Pages.
=> One Feedback Page.
=> Necessary Logos, Graphics and Animation

Development Tools
---------------------------
=> HTML
=> Macromedia Dreamweaver
=> Microsoft FrontPage
=> Macromedia Flash
=> Adobe PhotoShop
=> Adobe Illustrator
=> JavaScript
=> VB Script
=> ASP/PHP
=> Access/MySQL Database
Here comes the punch line:
Total Time for the Job: Two week

Development and Designing Cost:
==================================
Total cost of the web site design (Eleven pages) US $100
Additional per page Normal US $10
Additional per page ASP/PHP/Database Related US $35
Great prices, right? Every company in the country is being approached by hundreds of businesses around the world with offers similar to this. Many of them much more credible than the business that sent this e-mail. What this means is many fewer new U.S. web design jobs from now on. The same is happening with customer service jobs (both e-mail and phone centers), programming, and many other fields. They even have shops set up for analyzing medical x-rays. And yes, they are good. These are competent, educated people. India is graduating more engineering students each year than the United States and their schools are very good.

What is going to happen to American standards of living? We enter this new era of globalization with incredibly high levels of national, corporate and personal debt.

The problem with unregulated globalization is there are no protections against exploitation, and our world has pre-existing unemployment, forcing everyone to "race for the bottom" by trying to outbid those poorer than themselves. So Mexico is losing jobs to Thailand, which is losing jobs to VietNam, which is losing jobs to China and Bangladesh, where many people work for just enough to survive (or less).

Meanwhile, because of the job loss, people everywhere can afford less and less, so the volume of trade drops along with prices and wages. AND the countries with no environmental regulations, worker protections, etc. have an economic advantage over those that care about their people and the earth. It is a recipe for a race to the bottom, with now winners except those who start out with the most. Short-term they benefit from paying lower wages -- until the customer pool dries up. But, of course, they've made a killing by then. What matters is getting that corporate jet next year, not killing of your industry five years down the road.

If you pay attention to right-wing ideology (and I do) then you know they say that if someone will work for less than you, they should have the job and you should not, period, end of story. If they will work without health insurance, they should have the job. If they will work on a machine that might cut their hand off, and you won't, then they should have the job. They say the only criteria is corporate profit.

I do believe that people in other countries have every right to jobs. I don't think it's right to say that just because they are not Americans we should protect our industries. However, there are beneficial ways to accomplish world economic growth. Those who, like me, are "opposed to free trade" are asking for worker safety protections, international minimum wages, the right to form unions, environmental protections - things like that. For that we are marginalized, scoffed at and called "anti-free-trade" fanatics. Why? Because those things threaten the short-term profits of the big corporations.

Imagine if people in other countries were paid enough to purchase the things we make. Imagine what would that would mean for our prosperity as well as theirs! If they could buy refrigerators made here, and the shoes made there brought them enough to live better, what a world we would be making. This is what I want, and the anti-globalization people want.

Update - I just saw this story, which says it all, Tax Returns Taking Passage Through India. From the story:
The accounting industry has recently begun using the burgeoning India outsourcing and technology markets to process American clients' returns. In some cases, the work being performed is replacing tasks of U.S. accountants.
What did I just tell you?

Style note - OK I used all caps for one three-letter-word. I couldn't help it. Blow me.

4/05/2003

Why Did We Do This?

The justification for war with Iraq was that they have weapons of mass destruction and will use them against us. If they find chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, perhaps history will see this as a somewhat justified takeover of another country. So far they have not found them, and Iraq has not used them.

If they do not find them, what are we doing there? How will history record this takeover of a country that did nothing to us?

But here in America, Bush will be wildly popular for killing and injuring tens of thousands of the people who attacked the World Trade Center, whether they actually did or not. This LA Times poll tells the story. (Remember, to understand the message the right is spreading, don't listen to the words, instead find out what the intended audience HEARS.)
Nearly eight in 10 Americans now accept the Bush administration's contention — disputed by some experts — that Hussein has "close ties" to Al Qaeda (even 70% of Democrats agree). And 60% of Americans say they believe Hussein bears at least some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — a charge even the administration hasn't levied against him.
That's eight in ten! Where are people getting their information? I think historians will see this as an important story. Democracy relies on the informed consent of the citizens. If the citizens are this badly informed we have already lost our democracy and the world is in great danger. The right can plant any idea into the public mind, cause an attack on any country to take their oilfields or whatever they have. I think we are in for a very rough period.

Update - Daily Kos agrees with me, therefore they are billiant. Apparently not brilliant enough to link to Seeing the Forest, however, but I link to them so I guess it works out about even. Right?

Note that I still have not used all caps, bold, italics or any other device to break up the pain text. I do not know how long I can hold out.

4/04/2003

Kerry Fights Back Against Republican Smear Attempt

From Kerry Lashes Out at Republican Criticisms:
"The Republicans have tried to make a practice of attacking anybody who speaks out strongly by questioning their patriotism," the Massachusetts senator said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I refuse to have my patriotism or right to speak out questioned. I fought for and earned the right to express my views in this country."

...

"I watched what they did to Max Cleland last year," Kerry said. "Shame on them for doing it then and shame on them for trying to do it now."

Kerry also mentioned recent GOP criticism of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who said Bush's diplomatic efforts had failed "miserably" because he didn't secure a U.N. resolution for the war.

Following a speech to the New York State United Teachers convention in Washington, Kerry said, "I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out."

...

Kerry said Republicans have no right to criticize him when they are cutting funds to veterans hospitals.
It's good to hear this!

Using Akami?

Does your company's website depend on Akamai Technologies? Here's the kind of cusomter service you should expect from them.

Voting Machines

Are American elections fixed?
Might it be possible that, due to GOP control of computer voting machines, the electoral ""fix"" is in, and that as a result nothing short of a revolution will ever budge the Republican Party from control of the Congress and the White House? In other words, is it not conceivable that our ""democracy"" is more than ""threatened""––it is in fact finished, done for, kaput? And we are not even aware of it?
And, in case you missed it, I wrote about a voting machines story in the Washington Post the other day.

No More NYTimes Archive

The New York Times online archive is no longer free. Any NYTimes stories and commentaries linked to by this weblog that are older than 30 days now display an abstract, and ask you for money to see the rest of the piece. This will dramatically affect weblogging.

Iraq's Weapons

It strikes me that the arguments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a lot like the right's accusations during the "Clinton Scandals" of the 1990s. It was a pre-ordained assumption that the Clintons were guilty of something, and that an investigation was required to find out just what it was. The lack of any evidence of wrongdoing was proof of a coverup. Every new disclosure was infused with sinister connotations. In the end it turned out that not one single accusation was true - it was all made fabricated as part of a campaign to destroy Clinton's presidency. The blowjob was not related to the initial accusations in any way.

I don't know whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not. But have seen no evidence that they do, and I know that inspectors found no evidence. Gas masks found with Iraqi army units is not necessarily as sinister as it seems. Iraq was attacked with gas by Iran, so this would be standard equipment. And the U.S. has said they will be using CS and CN gas.

I have seen many discussion of why the Iraqis haven't used chemical weapons yet. Perhaps the non-use of chemical weapons isn't part of a plot to draw the forces closer and then gas them, and isn't part of a propaganda plan to increase sympathy. Perhaps the non-use is because they non-possess. We'll see.

Update - "Coalition" forces also have not yet found documents linking Iraq to 9/11.

Update - "Coalition" forces have encountered resistance from Iraqis they are supposedly "liberating."

Update - "Coalition" forces have not yet validated any other pretenses for this war, either. However, the oil fields have been secured and campaign donors are getting contracts to manage the oil fields and rebuild Iraq. So the operation is successful regardless of further events.

Note to the commenter on the Hullabaloo piece below - I didn't use caps, I didn't use bold, I didn't use italics, and there are no exclamation marks in this piece. I think it looks like a lot of plain text that non-academics might choose to skip over. Yes, I used to be in marketing.

You Could Be Next!

UK Doctors Advised on Ethics of Circumcision

Guess what disappeared.

(Remember, this is a blog, deteriorating in reverse chronological order.)

You Could Be Next!

SARS death toll rises as Singapore woman dies

YOU Could Be Next!

More Companies Cut 401(k) Contributions

Retirement plans, "disappeared."

YOU Could Be Next!

Businesses Cut 108,000 Jobs in March

Programmers, secretaries, and others, "disappeared" form cubicles and offices.

YOU Could Be Next!

Free Mike Hawash!

A programmer at Intel, in Portland. "Disappeared."

4/03/2003

A Comment I Left At Hullabaloo

I left a comment after this piece at Hullabaloo, Quisling Chalabi. It restates things I have written recently, so I'll repeat myself again. (Edited to make me look better, of course.) (Actually, completely reworked, but still sort of based on the comment.)

Hullabaloo wrote:
"If Democrats operated like Republicans, every single Dem would be pounding the neocons at this moment. Salon would do a story a day. Bill Press would enlist Pat Buchanan in a rousing denunciation on each show. The backbench firebrands in the congress would hold press conferences. Oppo researchers would distribute literature about the wacky neocons to every journalist on the beat. "
My thoughts:

I don't think it is about about Democrats and Republicans.

In my opinion the Republicans are now just an extension of the Scaife/Coors/Bradley, etc.-funded web of ideological think tanks and advocacy organizations -- Heritage, Horowitz, Federalist Society, etc. -- that call themselves "movement conservatives." They have this magnificent "message amplification infrastructure" in place - the "Wurlitzer" - that is able to move the public more and more to the right, and their politicians just rest on top of that. I think that is really the key to understanding what is happening to us so I'll repeat it. The "Wurlitzer" moves the public more and more to the right, and their politicians just rest on top of that.

Messaging and activities are coordinated at the "Wednesday night meetings." The organizations and people are unified because it ALL depends on the Scaife/etc. money, and, more importantly, because discipline is brutally enforced, often by ruining anyone who doesn't toe their line.

Moderates and progressives, on the other hand, do not have any system (which I call "infrastructure") that is designed to reach the general public with messaging designed to move them back from the right, bringing UNDERLYING PUBLIC SUPPORT for their organizations and elected officials across the board. So while it appears to be the fault of a Democratic Party that can't muster a counterattack, it really is something else.

I think the fault lies with the lack of understanding on the moderate/progressive side of the role of having an "infrastructure" in place, reaching out to the general public, supporting their elected officials, candidates and organizations. The right has been doing it for some time, providing us with a a model. (We can, however, skip the ruining-lives-of-those-who-don't-toe-the-line part.)

It isn't the party that accomplishes this -- it's the web of ideological organizations and funders that do the "advance work" of messaging that sets up the public environment that UNDERLIES the party. The problem is that "we" don't HAVE one.

What Is The White House Hiding?

Thinking it Through wants to know what is the White House hiding?

The Dean Speech

Here is a link to online video of the Howard Dean speech at the California Democratic Convention. After it loads into RealPlayer, slide the bar over until the counter reads 24:28, which will skip you past the Edwards speech.

If you watch this speech you will understand why you are hearing more and more about Howard Dean's candidacy for President. You'll see that there is hope for the next election AND for making real progress on the issues that we care about after he is elected. Watch this speech and even you Greens will want to vote for Dean!

I will support whichever candidate the Democrats nominate, because we need to win and start to repair the damage the right is doing to the country and the world. (Well, I admit that if Leiberman is nominated, even I might be tempted to vote Green.) But right now, among the announced candidates, I have come to support Dean. Watch this speech and you will see why!

Who Is Our Economy For?

Jobless Claims Highest Since April 2002:
WASHINGTON - New claims for unemployment benefits shot up last week to their highest point in nearly a year as businesses made work forces leaner amid a muddled wartime economic climate.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications jumped by a seasonally adjusted 38,000 to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That represented the highest level of new claims since the week ending April 13, 2002.
Yesterday's news was Factory Orders Dip, Worst in Five Months, and the stock market was up 215. This news is even worse, so the stock market will probably go through the roof today!

Update - In addition the services sector has pulled back big time! Services Pull Back Sharply - Report:
The pull-back in services, coupled with data this week showing contraction in manufacturing, a hefty drop in factory orders and a big jump in jobless claims, have revealed a grim picture of the economy's health as U.S.-led forces approach Baghdad.
Meanwhile, did anyone see the report on ABC News last night about all the older workers who are losing their pensions because the companies did not properly fund the pension programs, or are going out of business, or converting the pensions to a "cash" plan?

Who IS our economy for, anyway?

4/02/2003

Dean Meetup

I just returned from a Howard Dean "Meetup" in San Francisco. (They happen monthly in many localities -- you should go -- see the Dean Meetup icon on the left, below the blogroll and BuzzFlash headlines.) There was a very good turnout. They played a tape of Dean speaking to the California Democratic convention, and I have to tell you that speech was one of the most inspirational speeches I have seen in a very long time! Dean CAN win, and if he wins he CAN return our country to us. I'm tired now, and will try to write about the meetup tomorrow.

Sane?

Read this USA Today story, Strain of Iraq war showing on Bush, those who know him say and tell me if Bush is sane.
Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of the moment. He knows he's making "history-changing decisions,"

...

"He knows that we're all here to serve a calling greater than self," Evans says. "That's what he's committed his life to do. He understands that he is the one person in the country, in this case really the one person in the world, who has a responsibility to protect and defend freedom."
(Thanks BuzzFlash.)

We Urgently Need Our Own "Message Amplification Infrastructure"

There is a story in Salon, Daschle's SOS, about the right's response to Tom Daschle's criticism of how Bush's failure of diplomacy got us into a war, and an e-mail Daschle sent out asking for people to speak up for him:
As the war abroad continued to escalate last week, the nation's leading Democrat requested help for someone else under attack: himself. In response to Republican criticism, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's reelection committee sent out an e-mail last Thursday to union presidents and other supporters asking for them to "take the time to defend Senator Daschle from his critics."

The e-mail, obtained by Salon, noted that after Daschle "criticized the Administration's diplomatic efforts, the conservative attack machine went into full swing." On March 18, right before President George W. Bush issued his final ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Daschle told an American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees audience that he was "saddened, saddened, that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to go to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
One paragraph in particular jumped out at me:
In many ways Daschle's note is symbolic of a larger problem for the Democrats: They need to both support our troops, lest they be painted as less than patriotic, yet they also need to point out the president's missteps, raise funds and prepare for the 2004 elections. This can create awkward situations -- ones that Republicans, better organized and funded, can easily exploit.
I think the "larger problem for Democrats" is that the right has a comprehensive, widespread "message amplification infrastructure" in place to repeat their message, pound on anyone or anything they don't like and promote anyone or anything they do like, AND MODERATES AND PROGRESSIVES DO NOT! This is the larger problem for Democrats - and Greens -- and moderates and progressives and environmentalists and anti-war activists and organizations of all stripes!

The right's infrastructure has been called, among other things, "The Mighty Wurlitzer." This message amplification system repeats and repeats messages and literally shouts down any opposing opinions. (I say 'literally' because I have seen too many cable news shows where the right-wing spokesperson literally uses shouting as a tactic to drown out whatever an opponent tries to say.)

This infrastructure enables the right, on a moment's notice, to trot out a string of supposedly independent "voices" -- organizations, websites, TV networks, talk-radio shows, experts, scholars and pundits -- to argue their side of any issue. This is why I call this an "infrastructure" -- because it is issue independent, and it is "turnkey," meaning it is in place and ready to go on short notice regardless of the issue! The right's "think tanks" prepare talking points and briefing papers that are widely faxed and passed out and downloaded. They crank up their in-place network of talk-show hosts, pundits, officeholders, etc., and give them their instructions, and away it goes. And they prepare articles and commentaries that are printed in their web of magazines and newspapers. This message amplification infrastructure completely overwhelms the efforts of moderates and progressives to get their own messages out to the public.

Look at the result of their use of this message amplification system. Who can deny that we have an imbalance in our national discourse? Think about the bizarre and terrible situation our country is in: The government focuses on tax cuts for the rich while we have greater and greater deficits, the health care system is falling apart, our education system is badly underfunded, even our roads and bridges are in need of repair. We are not even funding our anti-terrorism efforts, yet the government's focus remains tax cuts for the rich and doing favors for the corporations that fund the right! Among other obvious results of this imbalance, we have an unelected President, and we are in an unnecessary war promoted by the right's web of organizations and media. People who object are called "unpatriotic," and even face severe economic consequences, like the Dixie Chicks and France. I attribute this imbalance to the right's domination of the national discourse, and that domination is the result of their powerful message amplification infrastructure.

Nothing like this messaging infrastructure is in place for moderates and progressives. Yes, there are organizations and think tanks that address specific policy areas. The Economic Policy Institute and the Sierra Club are examples. But these are not linked, not coordinated, and do not draw on a common network of pundits, talk shows, and advocacy organizations.

We must put such an infrastructure together for moderates and progressives!

So how do we accomplish this?

1) Recognize the need for it, and inform others. This is the beginning of the process! Read this article about how the right developed the idea of forming their infrastructure (written from the right's perspective).
Envious conservatives watched the powerful liberal coalition of academics, think tank analysts, members of Congress, White House aides, interest group officials, and journalists run much of the business of the nation's capital and wondered: "Why can't we put together an operation like that?" And wondered some more. Yet the answer was clear: there was no conservative alternative to the Brookings Institution, the catalyst for many of the legislative successes of the liberals during the 1960s and early 1970s.
Well, the 1960's Brookings Institution was nothing compared to what the right has built since!

We need to understand how the right has been so effective, and realize that we must set up a similar coordinated infrastructure that OUR leaders and organizations and institutions can draw on to get their messages out. Think about this, tell others about it. Write about it.

2) We must get this funded. Do you think this would be too expensive? Well, here is a surprise -- there is more money available on the moderate-progressive side than there is on the right! Yes, this is true. There is a great deal of private money that is given to environmental causes, civil rights, social justice, housing for the poor, economic opportunity for disadvantaged, and so many other programs that would be considered moderate/progressive. Much of this is done through a system of philanthropic foundations and organizations -- a system set up over the last 100 years since the time of Carnegie and Rockefeller.

But we now live in a world where the things we care about are under organized attack, and the moderate and progressive organizations and institutions are not set up to defend themselves and their programs! Who would have thought that there would be an organized, well funded attack by ideologues who believe that helping the poor and protecting the environment and things like that are bad? But this is what is happening, and philanthropists need to understand that there has been a change in the public environment, and begin funding an infrastructure to counter this.

The problem with traditional philanthropy is that the public environment of support for these programs has been changed by the efforts of this right-wing message amplification infrastructure. The nature of traditional philanthropy, with its "program funding" is under attack. Program funding, which came about as a way to best apply limited resources, is no longer as effective. In business terms, there is a poor return on investment (ROI) resulting from the effects of the right's attack operation. For example, $5 million put into a "save the redwoods" project is wasted if one right-wing judge rules that the trees can be cut, or a right-wing government rules that the best way to fight forest fires is to remove the trees! Wouldn't it have been better to put $500,000 into an infrastructure that generally counters the right's attack, working to bring public support back toward the center, so that the other $4,500,000 could be effective? This is how the right has been so effective - by building a message amplification infrastructure - and we should fight back and counter their attack.

If you know people who give money to organizations, or people who work at philanthropic foundations, please talk with them about this problem of the goals of traditional philanthropy being under attack, and how to respond.

Important - read also Don't Blame the Democrats.

There is more coming on this subject!

4/01/2003

Why I Am Not A Green

Light blogging? Well it isn't working out that way. (I've noticed that the best way to get the writing going is to actually POST that you aren't writing much...)

After posting that there would be light blogging, I read the most recent comment to the Biden to Peace Movement , "F%&K You!" piece from the other day. Here's is most of the comment:
The least significant of the two points, is the longtime stance he just cited by linking to his archive, that "Ralph Nader is a Scab". After Clinton and Gore cut everyone off welfare in 1996; stumped for the "Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty" act that same year; after Al was instrumental in selling vast tracts of Federal land to oil companies; after they failed to do anything about CAFE mileage standards for eight years; (look up Senate Resolution #98 of 1997 if you think Al's participation in the Kyoto treaty was anything more than a joke); after Al's steadfast support of Star Wars; Joe Lieberman's steadfast support of Tort "Reform," etc., etc., etc., well I'm sorry but I believe it was the Democrats who walked away from my picket line and not vice versa. That march continues to this very day. (I'm going to enjoy listening to the Democrats in 2004, trying to convince me that Joe Lieberman is our only hope to restore world peace and fight corporate corruption.) But that's a minor point.

The more important point is, a realistic analysis of Ralph Nader's impact on the 2000 shows that this fixation on blaming the Greens for "throwing" the election is without merit. Sure, Ralph got 2.8 million votes nationwide, and 98,000 in Florida. But according to CBS and MSNBC exit polls, roughly 10% of self-described "Democrats" VOTED FOR BUSH in the 2000 election, nationwide -- and roughly 12%, NEARLY ONE IN EIGHT, in Florida (again, CBS and MSNBC).

Crunch those numbers and you can see: FIVE MILLION Democrats voted for Bush nationwide, almost twice Nader's total, and 350,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida, nearly four times Nader's number. So isn't this fixation with blaming Nader, shared by MediaWhoresOnline and Eric Alterman, among many others... isn't that just a smokescreen that lets Democrats ignore their own failures?

Oh by the way, 8% of Republicans, nationwide and in Florida, voted for Gore, but I assume the Democrat's don't have a problem with that. So we have to ask the question, why were Republicans 92% confident in their candidate, while Democrats were only 90% confident (or, in Florida, 88% confident) in theirs??

This is not just an abstract statistical quirk for me. One of my own immediate family members, for example, describes herself as a "Democrat," but in 2000 she voted an all-Democrat ticket with Bush at the top. Since that time, she's become a Bush convert, listening to Fox news all the time, boycotting the French, and so forth.

Which leads me to the opinion: as Jim Hightower says, when you raise a hunger for steak among the voters, they're going to pick the sirloin over the ground chuck every time. When Democrats track to the Right, in a largely vain effort to pick up that elusive "undecided middle," they do NOT project an image that they are reasonable, bipartisan, open to democratic compromise. The message they project, to a sizeable chunk of the voters at least, is that they agree with the Republicans on crucial issues and are simply not being sincere about their opposition. Therefore the "undecided middle" votes for the people who project more conviction, and we end up with a situation like we did in November 2002.

It is the weak-kneed Democrats (exempting the strong-willed ones, like the late great Wellstone, or Jesse Jackson Jr.), who are the ones, in my opinion, who end up getting Republicans elected in close races. Not the numerically less significant Greens.

Get that 10% number down -- even a couple of percent!! -- before you accuse me of breaking solidarity.
THIS is my biggest problem with the Greens. I haven't heard ANY Greens put that kind of energy into attacking Republicans and their policies, EVER! This comment is entirely about things that happened in the past, and reads more like a Republican anti-Democrat tract than than about how do we accomplish those progressive goals that we share!

Many Greens spend more time and energy attacking Democrats than they do trying to get their agenda passed. WHO BENEFITS from this kind of campaign against Democrats? The environment? The poor? Iraqi civilians? Civil rights? The economy? Workers rights?

Let me confess a sin - I used to be registered as a Green, and I voted for several Green candidates. But for me, politics is about achieving certain goals -- protecting the environment, keeping peace in the world, bringing opportunity to the disadvantaged - things like that, things I call progressive goals and believe that Democrats and Greens share. These progressive goals are very important to me, and I look for the best way to get things done, to accomplish these goals.

Initially I registered and voted Green to "send a message to the Democratic leadership" but eventually I realized that voting Green was actually threatening my goals by "splitting the vote" and I changed my registration back to the Democratic Party. Yes, I understand that some Democrats took corporate money and voted in ways I think were destructive to the overall cause. But I think it is more important to work toward my goals than to punish those Democrats for being less than perfect.

Today I look at politics as an emergency! I lived through Nixon and Reagan, and now I am fortunate to have a job that allows me to study the right-wing movement, so I understand that the right is no longer engaged in anything resembling a democratic contest. I believe that today we face a terrible threat. My experience and study has led me to believe that many on the right are itching to round up people like me and put us into camps - or worse. Just spend a minute reading Ann Coulter or Michael Savage and you'll understand what I am talking about. And this is on top of the terrible destruction they are bringing to all of the things that I care about so much - the environment, world peace, opportunity for the disadvantaged, civil rights, corporate corruption, concentration of wealth, even basic civility! Some of the people in this government are the same individuals who helped Nixon subvert the electoral process, and who helped overthrow the Allende government in Chile, leading to the horrible repression that followed. Many of the people in this government are the same individuals who helped Reagan subvert the Constitution, and helped bring about the "secret wars" in Central and South America that brought death and torture to so many. ALL of the people in this government come out of the nasty, ultra-partisan "movement conservative" smear campaigns and destruction of our judicial system that occurred in the 1990s. These are not people who care for a minute about democracy or rights or community or civility or YOU!

Today we face a real threat to our liberties and possibly even our lives, and I don't CARE what some Democrats did in the 1990's, I want to work in the most effective possible way to fight them, and to accomplish the progressive goals that I care so much about! This is why I am no longer a Green.

Now to address some specifics in what the commenter wrote. The anti-Democrat facts in the comment are just wrong! An example - there would be no Kyoto treaty if Gore himself had not flown to Kyoto to persuade the attendees to vote for the treaty! I remember that, and if the writer had been working to achieve the goal of protecting the environment from global warming, the writer would be ready to acknowledge Gore's contribution - as do all major environmental organizations!

How does it help Nader's argument if some Democratic voters voted for Bush? Doesn't this reinforce why we need those people who really understand the issues to hold solidarity, so we can accomplish those things we agree need doing? Is the writer unaware of the propaganda effort the Republicans put out to blur the distinctions between themselves and Democrats (assisted by the Greens)? OF COURSE a lot of people are persuaded to vote Republican! That's the battle we are in if we want to get anything done to help the environment, the poor and peace on earth! The Greens should be fighting alongside those who share their overall goals, not assisting those who want to destroy everything the Greens say they stand for.

Update - I should have added sooner - I was at my talk on blogging, which went very well - that I think a solution we can all agree on is preferential balloting, also known as instant runoff voting (IRV). IRV lets you select a first and a second choice. If no candidate gets 50% the candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated and the SECOND choice on the ballots for those candidates is used. Here's how this works - If this had been in effect in Florida Nader and Buchanan (and others) ballots would have their second choices applied (most likely Gore and Bush). The Nader votes would have been applied most likely to Gore. The Buchanan votes would have been applied to Bush (or Gore in Palm Beach because of the mistakes). With IRV voting people can "vote their conscience", but their vote would COUNT TOWARD candidates who SHARE their values, instead of working against candidates who share their values. It helps everyone and is much more democratic than what we have now.

Light Blogging

I'm having one of those periods where I'm not writing much. Maybe I'm spending too much time read other blogs! Also, I'm giving a talk on blogging today and that's eating up time. So I guess I must declare this an official Light Blogging day.

3/31/2003

A Few Other Blogs

Agonist, all day, every day.

Talking Points Memo, lots about "Chickenhawk Down" -- how the Bush Admin. screwed the military, got them into this mess.

tendentious, everything. For some reason he isn't happy with our war. Especially look at the pictures and follow the picture link.

Ruminate This and Sideshow, talking about the new We Want the Airwaves "collection of links documenting the decline of free speech in the mass media (and the fight to retain it)"!
The dangers of media concentration under corporate control pose perhaps the greatest threat to our democratic system. The press, supposed to perform as unofficial but vital "fourth arm" of democratic government, is slowly ceding all claim to be informing the public. News departments on the publicly-owned airwaves have decreasing independence from their corporate owners, and even the Public Broadcasting System represents corporate sponsors and those who control Congress rather than the public. Local and independent radio stations using local talent and programming have become more and more rare as the likes of Clear Channel compound their dominance of the national airwaves.
PNAC Watch, looking at how did we get into this war mess, anyway.

Update - worldgonewrong writes to newspaper about reinstating the draft.
The news that our troops are short-handed and require immediate reinforcement compels all patriotic Americans to enlist immediately. Has the Star Tribune looked into just how many Minnesotans have rushed to enlist in the last few days? Not to fight right away in Iraq, but to be trained and available for such time as they are needed.

Now is the time when Minnesotans and all Americans should be pressing their elected representatives to reinstate the draft. If liberating the people of Iraq is a national mission, we should be eager to see our sons and daughters called to do their duty.

Write your Congressman and ask that a draft be reinstated immediately. Then go enlist.

Newspapers can help, too – see to it that those who have been most excited about the war are first to volunteer their children.
Go offer your congratulations.

Read the story that Digby points to from Hullabaloo. If Blogspot isn't working (as usual) scroll down to "Embedded". Sad, terrifying.

3/29/2003

Biden to Peace Movement , "F%&K You!"

A Green Party friend of mine sent this to me today, just to tweak me. (I tweak my Green friends, they tweak me. But I'm right and they're wrong, and they ARE responsible for Bush being in office and all the damage he is doing, because they broke the coalition, busted the solidarity.)

ANYway, does anyone reading this weblog know Senator Biden? If so, please show him what the Greens are circulating via e-mail, and ask him to please shut up! We'd like there to be a FEW people still voting Democrat in the next election, please. Here's the message from my Green friend:
Hmm... you know, the Greens are more than willing to serve as the port in a storm for the anti-war folks. I think we'd be very happy to accommodate the millions of people Senator Biden is saying "fuck you" to.

----- Original Message -----
From: XXX - Greens
To: XXX - circulating around the internet
Sent: repeatedly
Subject: FW: WRONG PORT IN STORM
> This came my way this afternoon.
>
> Subject: WRONG PORT IN STORM
>
> PETER JENNINGS, ABC - A large number of people in the country are
> opposed to this [war] ... but look to members of the Democratic Party,
> particularly, to be sort of their port in a storm, their place to
> manifest their dissatisfaction.
>
> SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN - They've got the wrong port. . . The decision's
> been made.
Why THANKS, Joe! F%&k you, too!

3/28/2003

Voting Machines Story in Washington Post

The Washington Post has a voting machines story today, New Voting Systems Assailed - Computer Experts Cite Fraud Potential:
Critics of such systems say that they are vulnerable to tampering, to human error and to computer malfunctions -- and that they lack the most obvious protection, a separate, paper receipt that a voter can confirm after voting and that can be recounted if problems are suspected.
This is what we need. Call your local election officials and DEMAND they implement systems with voter-verified paper backups! Otherwise we can never really know who wins our elections. And with the voting machine companies being bought up by right wingers, it's all just too scary for me.

Update - If these companies sold machines with a voter-verifiable paper backup, (which the voter then puts into a separate ballot box for use double-checking the machine's reported vote,) these companies WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY! So how come they are working so hard to block this? How come they are sending their representatives out to lobby against this? That is suspicious all by itself - never mind that right wingers have been buying up these companies.

Update 2 - Suppose something goes wrong with a voting machine in a precinct, and all the votes stored in the machine are lost. There is some likelihood that a judge will order the election to be held again. This costs money. If the machine had printed voter-verifiable paper ballots that were placed in a ballot box, this would not be necessary. Since it could save them money, why are local election officials resisiting voter-verified paper ballots?

Are You Going To Be Drafted?

The military is sending 130,000 more troops to Iraq, and will require 200,000 or more to be stationed there for years to control the country after we take it over. The reserves and National Guard are tapped out. North Korea is acting up and the situation there could turn into a major war. The government is planning a war with Iran, probably Syria, then who knows?

Obviously we do not have enough people in the military. It won't be long now before the draft is reinstated. Think you'll be able to get out of it? Take a look at this piece from Quaker in a Basement (thanks to Thinking it Through.)
A young man -- or woman -- turning 20 this year could be in boot camp in less than two weeks. All that's needed is a single request from George W. Bush.
The draft. Don't like it? Well, did you vote? Looks like you should have. Did you vote for Bush? Looks like you made a big mistake.

It's ALL Just Propaganda and Lies!

Washington Post story, CEO Bush Takes Over Management of Message:
People close to Bush said his aides initially emphasized a hands-off approach because they wanted to insulate him from bad news and because they did not want him to appear obsessed with or emotional about the war. These aides quickly realized they had overdone it, potentially making Bush look out of touch. But his advisers have concluded that scripted remarks, rather than off-the-cuff comments, may be required in assuring that the message of the day gets delivered forcefully.
It's ALL just propaganda and lies. Learn to not listen.

Digby Nails It!

We're in a real war, not a 3-day video game -- and everyone seems surprised. The administration is desperately sending 130,000 more troops to Iraq to try to salvage the situation. They made a mistake believing the Iraqis would immediately surrender -- never mind that the CIA and everyone else was trying to tell them this wouldn't happen. The Chickenhawks overruled the military professionals who were saying more forces would be needed.

In this Hullabaloo piece, Even If They Hate Him, Digby nails it. You've got to go read the whole piece, but this here a bit of the flavor:
Merely proclaiming yourself to be "good" and Saddam "evil" is unlikely to persuade anyone but silly red-staters who carry around signs that say "W Is A Hottie." Nobody else is going to buy it. Certainly not Iraqi people who have every reason to be a teensy bit skeptical of politicians who talk and act tough. They've learned the hard way that strong men aren't particularly thrustworthy.
Now I'm going to give away the money quote, from Tom Tomorrow. Forgive me Digby, and Tom, but it's just too good not to steal. (Actually, Digby stole it, too, which is how I found it.)
We took a lot of lessons from 9/11, but it occurs to me that there's one we might have overlooked. When you attack a nation, people tend to rally around their leader --- even if they hate him.
Blogquote award to Digby and Tom Tomorrow!

Gotta Gotta Have Tax Cuts

NT Times today, Government to Cut 3,000 Airport Passenger Screeners:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some airports will have fewer passenger screeners this spring now that the government agency that hired them last year begins shrinking its work force.

As many as 3,000 screeners, or about one in 18, could lose their jobs.
Gotta cut spending. Gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta have those tax cuts! Gotta cut the workforce (which "takes money out of the economy.") Gotta, gotta give those tax cuts to the rich!

3/27/2003

Mystery Illness (SARS) Update

MSNBC: Airlines to screen travelers for SARS
Illness spreading more quickly than thought, officials say
March 27 — According to U.S. and United Nations health officials, the mysterious respiratory illness plaguing southeast Asia has begun spreading around the world at an alarming rate, NBC News’ Robert Bazell reported Thursday. As more cases were announced, The World Health Organization called on airlines to begin screening passengers for the deadly flu-like disease.
Like we needed more to worry about.

I'll dig up some good news to post, or write something that really slams right wingers and cheers us all up, soon.

I agree with you in principal, BUT...

I think the current right wing as constituted is the wrong group to tackle this. Today's "conservative movement" is set up in a completely dictatorial fashion, not allowing dissent of any kind in their ranks, failing to bring any bad news (reality) to the top and enforcing this with severe measures. As a result they are screwing things up pretty badly.

You need look no farther than the force distribution in Iraq, AND HOW THIS HAPPENED - the governing system that the movement has brought us - to see what I am getting at. (recent WaPo article) By demanding complete ideological loyalty and punishing any smallest objection to dictates from the top, they have set up a system that can make - almost necessitates - this kind of huge, historic mistake.

Rather than get into a long analysis, just look at the diplomatic situation so far - the world has turned against us but more importantly the PEOPLE in the MIDDLE EAST have turned utterly against us. Suppose we do bring the chaos we are trying to bring to the region, hoping it will result in democracy sweeping the region. Right now that will mean fundamentalist Islamic governments across the board. It would mean governments of fanatics utterly committed to our destruction - WITH STATE POWER BACKING THEM UP. This is entirely the result of the Bush approach, which comes from the current nature of the "conservative movement."

And if you dare agree with me, think about what Rush or Norquist will do to you if they find out! Think about the kind of comments YOU make and the hate mail YOU leave for anyone who disagrees with the dictates of the "movement."

Think about what happened when the military professionals tried to disagree with the "movement conservatives" running the government.

This is a mess or the right's own making.

Astroturf Letter Alert!

In today's Palo Alto Daily News (not online) I noticed the following suspicious letter:
Over the last few weeks, tens of thousands of Americans have been coming out to support our President and our troops at a series of “Rallies for America,” held across the country from Washington D.C. to California.

Where has the media been? There’s plenty of coverage of the Socialist-led anti-war demonstrations, complete with their vanguard of radical left-wing Hollywood “actors”. But where is the coverage of these rallies of grassroots support? The silence coming from the major news media has been deafening.

...

You have a DUTY to report on these grassroots outpourings of support for our country... Thank you.

XXXXX
A quick Google search reveals:

The Times of South Mississippi

The Salt Lake Tribune

Hispanic Vista

And, of course, see the wording here - I guess they're saving money on copywriters.

"Rallies for America" is sponsored by the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the Free Congress Foundation and others. (Is this the Clear Channel - corporate organized rallies?)

Yeah, right. "Grassroots."

Thanks Altercation for Listing Seeing the Forest

I would like to thank Eric Alterman's Altercation weblog for adding Seeing the Forest to Altercation's blogroll! Seeing the Forest will try to live up to the very high standard that Altercation continues to set for weblogs.

Seeing the Forest offers a politically neutral, non-partisan, fair and balanced viewpoint on current issues.

By the way - Eric Alterman is author of What Liberal Media? and you should buy it!

San Francisco Peace Event Friday March 28

This just came in from MoveOn:

Dear MoveOn Member,

For those Bay Area residents who are interested in peace activities, here is a message from the Agape Affinity Group, who is organizing an opportunity for people and families to participate in a safe event to express their feelings in San Francisco on Friday, March 28.
-------------------
To Express Our Shock and Grief at the US War in Iraq

Join Us for a Mass Silent Funeral Procession

WHERE: San Francisco Federal Building
located on Golden Gate Avenue between Polk and Larkin Streets

WHEN: Friday, March 28 from 4:00pm to 7:00pm

This somber action will include a silent procession in front of the federal building and a candlelight vigil. Everyone is encouraged to wear black and
bring creative/artistic expressions of grief -- masks, signs, flowers, coffins, candles - all in keeping with the tone of mourning. Spread the word to make this a large and powerful response to the war.

Non-violent legal action organized by the Presente Cluster.

For more information:
contact the Agape Affinity Group
phone: (415) 701-8707
email: info@agapefn.org

Can We Win Now?

Thanks to Agonist for pointing to this excellent post at tacitus (a right-wing site) about the problems we're encountering in Iraq.

3/26/2003

Wanna Get Scared Now?

Read this and this. India and Pakistan increasing tensions.

And this, this and this. North Korea is getting more and more provocative.

Voting Machines

I was doing some research and came across this: Election Fraud & Voting Machines at Cronus Connection. There is also a collection of resources.

Just Don't Listen

Someone I know said the other day she doesn't want a liberal talk show network to start up because it will just give Rush Limbaugh more to make fun of, and she is so tired of Limbaugh and the rest of the right's nasty insults and mocking and she just wants it to stop.

Well, I don't CARE what the right thinks. I don't CARE what the right says about us. It's just all lies and people shouldn't waste their time and energy caring about it. I don't CARE about the right's perception machine. People need to understand what it is that they do and just stop listening.

I think the way to gain back our own power and immunity to this is to let others know how the right operates. It's just all lies. The more people realize that it's just all lies, the better off they will be.

Free yourself. Stop caring what they say. It's just all lies.

skimble

skimble has lots of good stuff today, blowing up the Iraqi TV building was a war crime, government money going to cults (surprise), no charges against Enron execs, why did we invade?, and LOTS MORE. Go read.

3/25/2003

Blog Hero - Blue Streak

I want to announce another Seeing the Forest Blog Hero award. At Blue Streak Devra writes about her new job.
In a nutshell, I'm like a Store Manager, if a store gave away services for free to poor, mentally ill, and/or homeless customers. It's good work. I'm proud of what we do. I hope I do it well.
Go leave a comment and a kudo!

Senate Democrats Vote For Huge Tax Cut!

It appears that Senate Democrats have voted FOR a $350 BILLION tax cut! I'm trying to find the exact count on this, but it appears a number of Democrats voted FOR this atrocity! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???!!

The country has massive deficits, we are at war, programs that help the public are being slashed - and Democrats vote for another tax cut!

It looks like they got rolled again. Please read Getting Rolled.

I am completely dismayed by this. This takes away the Bush economy as a campaign issue! This takes away the deficits as a campaign issue! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???!! Is it time to start recall campaigns to we can get some people in there who will represent US?

Update - Well, now I know what they were thinking. The person answering the phone at Senator Boxer's office portrayed this as a Democratic victory because Bush was asking for $750 billion and "only" got $350 billion. I'm thinking I should call back and demand $2 million! I sure could use the million that it appears I'll get! What a bunch of loons, thinking this is a victory!

OK I took out the comment about voting Green. No sense in that.

Update - Ruminate This agrees with me, Atrios disagrees. Obviously Ruminate is brilliant! Atrios, well... I know - HEY Atrios, give me $2 million right now! :-)

Korea - The Other Shoe

HinduStan Times: US has detected signs North Korea is preparing missile test: Envoy:
The United States has detected signs that North Korea may be preparing to test-fire a long-range missile, the top US envoy to Japan told senior ruling party lawmakers on Monday.
Yes, you have to go to news sources outside of the U.S. to get any real coverage of events.

Thanks to The Agonist, which is the best source for up-to-date war news!

3/24/2003

Al Jazeera English Website

Al Jazeera now has an English-language website.

Now I'm Listening to Mike Malloy

Now I'm listening to Mike Malloy online. He plays a clip of Bush and then talks about how it's like Bush "has a feed going into his head" and "you can almost hear an audible click as the clip he was fed stops." I love this guy. He's funny. He's like a left-wing Rush!

Click this to listen online, and once you're listening bookmark it in your audio player. Just come back to this setting and you get Peter Werbe followed by Mike Malloy every day.

Listening Online

Right now I'm listening to the Peter Werbe radio show, online. It is GREAT! It is so good to listen to something like this instead of the right wing crap. You can listen online, and you'll love it! Go to his website here. Then click where it says "On The Air," which takes you to the i.e. America Radio Network website. Click Listen Live. He's been playing the Michael Moore Oscars clip all morning.

Or, just bypass all that and click this to listen online.

If you keep listening you'll hear the next show, which is the Mike Malloy show, which is also great! I highly, highly recommend it! Later, while Malloy is on, I'll write about his show, too.

Everything A Lie

In yesterday's Washington Post story, Attack Was 48 Hours Old When It 'Began':
Under the official war plan, designated "OPLAN 1003 V" and approved by the president, the war with Iraq had already begun.
When Bush went on the air in Prime Time Monday evening to give Iraq 48 hours to do what HE says or else, he was lying - the war had already begun.

It's just all lies! The right wingers have an agenda, they lay down a cover of lies and confusion, and they take advantage of the confusion to outflank us and grab what they want. Like with Iraq. We know that the idea of invading Iraq began 10 years ago, with the PNAC plan. We have learned that some of the "evidence" they used to justify the war was forged, some of the "intelligence" was really from a years-old graduate student dissertation, the aluminum tubes weren't really for atomic weapons development, etc. They just wanted this war, and they got it.

It's like the tax cuts. One day the cuts were to give "the people's money" back because there was a surplus, the next it was supposed to keep us out of recession, etc., etc. Everything they SAID was just lies. But what they DID was give a huge chunk of cash to a few rich fucks. Or it's like when Bush gives a public photo-op at some environmental project or public housing project or whatever - and then the administration guts that very program the next week. The lies for the public, covering what they are really doing. It's just all lies.

There is something to learn from this: When dealing with right wingers, it's just all lies. We're dealing with a well-funded, well-established propaganda machine, and they are good. I mean, a number of people in this crowd were tobacco marketing people -- they convinced people to kill themselves and give them their money while they were doing it! These people are good at this stuff!

The way to fight back is to realize that it is just all lies and if you get bogged down with the things they say, you're just getting yourself caught in one of those sticky insect traps.

Just reject everything they say, and only see what they DO and you'll have some power over what's going on. Realize that they are very good at lying and sowing confusion and don't let yourself get confused by listening to the words. Don't bother arguing with their words -- confront them with their ACTS!

The lies are just trees. See the forest - it's all lies, reject it all, and believe only what you actually see them DO!!!

Update - From Daily Kos today:
Propaganda
The US is really starting to lose the propaganda war, as everything it says turns out to be lies.

Witness:
  • Saddam is dead! Ok, no he's not.
  • Iraq fired a Scud at Kuwait! Ok, no it wasn't.
  • Umm Qasr is taken! Ok, no it's not.
  • The Iraqi 51st Division surrendered en masse! Ok, not it hasn't.
  • Republican Guard commanders will surrender! Ok, no they won't.
  • Basra is taken! Ok, no it's not.
  • We found a chemical weapons factory! Ok, maybe it isn't.
  • It was Nixon's Attorney General and head of his re-election committee, Mitchell, who advised Republican insiders who were confused because they didn't understand why things said didn't match what was happening, "Watch what we do, not what we say."

    3/23/2003

    He Needs A Blog

    Here's another of what might become a regular feature at Seeing the Forest - He/She Needs A Blog. (Remember, this is how Digby's great Hullabaloo blog got started, thanks to Eschaton.)

    Thumb sent the following. It's good.
    A right winger posted this: "My simple definition of the left and the right. The left wants MOST of your money and will decide for you where it will be spent. The right wants you to decide where it's going to be spent since it's you who earned it to begin with."

    My response:

    Uggh! Sophomoric propaganda.

    There’s been this tendency throughout our millennia of human development that the wealth of any given group accumulates to a very small percentage of the population, where it stays, and subsequently nepotism then creates the ruling class whose mission inevitably isn't to provide for the common good but to insure this caste system remain in place (starting wars has historically been a common means -- not only does it rally a disgruntled population around you but you get to steal the wealth of another nation at the same time. Win win). It's called an aristocracy. For the last 1,500 years its instrument of civil control, and moral justification for the ensuing barbarism, has been the Church. Because the Church had this bad habit of ordering the torturing and killing of those that didn't subscribe to their narrow view of Christianity (on the minutia of doctrine Protestants and Catholics have been taking turns slaughtering each other for 400 years alone, and don't even get me started on the Crusades . . . or the witch hunts) people fled to this new world called America. But it wasn't just the freedom from religious persecution that drove people to America but to escape from the aristocracies of Europe as well. It's why we formed a Republic and created this grand experiment called Democracy.

    The fly in the ointment was exposed by the late 19th century when American industrialists discovered that they could become the modern equivalency of an aristocracy: a plutocracy -- a distinction without a difference. At the turn of the century the vitality of our democracy (helped along by the Teapot Dome scandal something so common today that it barely breaks the news any longer) was able to create a tax system that prevented us from becoming simply a modern version of Europe's aristocracy. Because of this tax money being spent on the public good, through dedicated public works and education, we generated the world's most vibrant economy. Because of that, even though the top tax rate was 90%, we didn’t lack for creating more millionaires than any other country. We were all much wealthier both because of how many people were spending money and because as a meritocracy it truly was the best and the brightest that rose to the top of our institutions.

    This class warfare disguised as populism by millionaire corporate leaders, their purchased politicians and wholly owned media outlets (which, short of the Internet is almost total) is a battle that's been slowly losing ground for 30 years now, and not the least of it is because of simplistic propaganda like your simile. If it were honest it would say, "The left wants to support the public good (schools, training, police, fireman, veterans, infrastructure (physical and virtual), the elderly (social security - medicare), libraries, environmental protections, national parks, unemployment/medical insurance, intellectual exploration (from space to alternative energy to medical research), international outreach, arts [hey, that's us], music . . .) and the right wants you to think you're keeping your money because they don't believe in paying for the [potentially] greatest society in the history of humankind, because they don’t believe our ability to create our own wealth has any relationship to the health of our public institutions.

    If you don’t believe this is the case then explain to me how all of those things I just listed as "public good" have been cut or underfunded, including THIS after the first day of the invasion, and then, the Republicans just this week passed another $800 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

    (Malcome Forbes used to say, "I earned my money the old fashioned way, I inherited it.")

    Only through the strength of our society do I have the opportunity to earn my money, build my little empire as it were, in the first place. I pay my taxes and I don’t bitch about it because I'm grateful to be an American. I'd say that if someone doesn’t like it they can go to another country but it seems that our wealthiest corporations have already done that at least a PO box in Bermuda so that they don't have to pay any taxes. Yeah, real good Americans, we wouldn’t want to make them pay for anything because, as you say, they earned it, right?

    We have the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world and I’m proud to be a contributing member of this great nation. I just wish the Right felt the same way.

    Oh, and here's a real link if you want an intelligent discussion of the relationship between taxes and a healthy economy.
    Good stuff, Thumb! Keep it up.

    Excuses

    It seemed that every time I have turned on the radio or TV news this weekend they are reporting how much Bush is on top of things, how he is getting reports from the front, having meetings, etc. Of course, this emphasis is just propaganda to counteract the damage done should the public understand the implications of Bush taking off on his weekly vacation immediately upon launching a war. They wouldn't be spending time and energy reporting ANY of this if he were in the White House because they wouldn't need to be trying to convince the public that it's a good thing that the President doesn't like to do his job.

    Seeing the amount of energy they are expending defending the President's laziness, wouldn't it be more productive if he could have stayed on the job just this one weekend, and that energy utilized to some productive end? Also, there would be some time for us to hear some real news.