If the Administration did not deceive the American people about the existence of WMD in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, then the possibility that these weapons have already proliferated and spread to terrorist groups becomes much greater. And that should be troubling for any Administration that insists it is acting to make the American people safer. (Which raises an interesting question: should we be happier if it turns out that the Administration was merely dishonest because it misled the public about WMD's in Iraq or incompetent because it let the WMD's fall into the hands of terrorists?)Did he lie, or was he just incompetent?
6/06/2003
Wording It Well
Balkinization puts the right words to the WMD problem:
Republican Crony Club
Here's a story about more blatant Republican Crony Club corruption that will not result in any indictments or headlines. And especially no leading Democrats calling for investigations. Update - Here's another one.
By the way - still no no leading Democrats calling for investigation of Bush's corruption with Harken Oil, or Cheney's corruption with Halliburton.
By the way - still no no leading Democrats calling for investigation of Bush's corruption with Harken Oil, or Cheney's corruption with Halliburton.
Listen to Rush
A comment I left over at Billmon's blog, after a posting about how Americans are uninformed - or misinformed - about the WMD situation:
I'm surprised by how many of "us" - progressives and moderates - don't ever listen to Rush or Sean Hannity, which happen to be where a very large fraction of America gets its news. I think it's important to understand what they are saying. You won't BELIEVE it if you turn on Rush or Sean, but it's what the public is hearing, and you'll see why Bush is so popular. Try it.I'm serious. It is a very good thing to know what your opponents are saying. It's also a good way to know what you're going to be hearing about everywhere else. Also, you'll understand just how serious the right is, and how hard they are ready to fight.
6/05/2003
Go Read
Every, every, everybody should read Arianna Huffington's piece The Enronization of Public Policy!
More On Bush vs Veterans
Democratic Veteran has caught Bush out on another one - involving the government pulling back the number of contracts to veteran-owned small businesses.
6/04/2003
The Democratic Wing
I think pundits who think the phrase "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" refers to the lefties "just don't get it." In my opinion the phrase refers to Democrats willing to be an opposition party and stand up and challenge the Republicans when it is in the interest of the country. Senator Bob Graham, candidate for President certainly is no leftie, but he certainly is willing to stand up and challenge the Republicans, calling on President Bush to release information about what led up to 9/11. I respect that, even if his politics are not in line with my own. The politics of Sen. John Kerry DO line up with mine, but I feel that he does not stand up to the Republicans as necessary, and THAT is why he does not earn the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" label.
Graham is a quiet man who is considered a long shot among Democratic contenders. But he is the only one so far to stake out an aggressive position on the basis of classified information obtained during his tenure as co-chair of a special House-Senate panel. That panel has been investigating failure by the intelligence community to anticipate the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.Being in the Democratic wing is about being an opposition party and standing up for the people of the country and the interests of the nation instead of cowering before the Bush intimidation machine, allowing the right to persue their radical agenda to take the country back to the 19th century. That's what it's about, not about being a leftie. And it's about getting it. Checking in with weblogs is getting it. Reading BuzzFlash is getting it. Understanding what the grassroots are talking about is getting it. THAT is why Governor Howard Dean is doing so well with the grassroots, and THAT is why Dean can use the phrase "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
Not only has he complained that the administration has dragged its feet for five months on declassifying the panel's 800-page report, but he has warned that he will take his case later this month to Vice President Dick Cheney, who oversaw the inquiry.
"I was raising my voice about my concern on this long before I became a candidate," said Graham, the only senator running for president who voted against congressional authorization of the war in Iraq, arguing that the terrorist threat posed by al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden should be the top priority for the administration.
"The American people deserve to know what their intelligence agencies have done or not done, and Congress needs to know so that reforms can be made," Graham said in an interview.
Priorities
U.S. Begins to Excavate Bomb Crater in Search for Hussein's Remains.
A team of American military engineers began an intensive effort today to excavate the site of a bombing on April 7 that military officials still think may have killed Saddam Hussein.Weapons hunters haven't examined Iraqi missile site.
The operation, involving a backhoe, two bulldozers, two cranes and 17 dump trucks, appeared to be by far the largest American effort to discover whether Mr. Hussein was killed in the raid.
But no U.S. weapons hunters or intelligence officials have visited the heart of Iraq's missile programs -- the state-owned Al-Fatah company in Baghdad, which designed all the rockets Saddam Hussein's troops fired in 1991 and again this year. Not only that, it's not even on their agenda.They sure as hell immediately secured the oil fields, and sent the troops necessary to accomplish that. But they never did put much effort into locating and securing the supposed weapons. Yes, the same weapons that were a terrible, unimaginable threat to our security. Weapons that not only Saddam could use against us, but terrorists could get their hands on. But after the war they didn't even bother to send more than a few teams out to look for them -- surely not a major effort to secure all these weapons before they could be used on us or dispersed to terrorists. It's almost like they didn't want to waste resource on something that was nothing more than a story - a pretense - an excuse.
``We have the most sensitive documents here,'' said Marouf al-Chalabi, director-general of Al-Fatah. ``We were sure the Americans would target us, but they haven't even dropped by.''
...
Plans for rocket engines, guidance systems and even missile warheads are strewn across the dusty office floors and swirl in the parking lot outside. Some have been blown into nearby bushes. ``They're scattered everywhere,'' Chalabi said, marveling at the mess.
American missile experts who have accompanied U.S. weapons teams in Iraq expressed astonishment this week when told that the design plans and engineers behind the Iraqi Scuds and other missile projects were available. The experts, who couldn't be identified for security reasons, said Al-Fatah wasn't on any target list they had seen.
6/03/2003
Sense of Decency
Reading Krugman, and reading other news questioning whether Bush lied claiming Iraq was a threat to us, I think we might be having a "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moment. If so, I want Al Franken to get the historical credit, for going after O'Reilly the other day. I heard about it from several blogs, and saw it on C-Span. You gotta see it, it's historic. You can watch by clicking here (scroll to where it says Franken, and click "Watch") or, if you have DSL or cable, here. (Use RealPlayer's slide bar if you want to skip to where Franken starts - about 27 or 28 minutes into it.)
Franken went after Bush and Limbaugh and O'Reilly (in person - he was sitting right next to him) for lying. I mean he really went after them. At the end of his talk he said that we're tired of the lies from the right and tired of just taking it and "we're not going to sit for it anymore, we just aren't." Franken's upcoming book is titled, "LIES, And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them:A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" and O'Reilly is on the cover.
Then today Paul Krugman's column just got real and said it.
So this might be a turning point, a "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moment that crystallizes people's thinking and helps guide them back to doing the right thing. It's hard to ignore this one. Getting us into a war is serious businesses. Many people died. We were asked to trust the President, that he knew things we didn't, that there were stockpiles of dangerous chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons -- and it's hard to reconcile that with what we have found on the ground. Now we're bogged down with at least 150,000 troops stuck there, getting shot at, for years. And if we leave there is little doubt that Iraq will become a Shiite fundamentalist country and that WILL be a threat to us. So this one is going to be very hard to slip past the public, even with the extent of control of the media they have now. They just lie and lie, and look where it gets us.
We're not going to sit for it anymore. We just aren't.
Update - Here, from a former war supporter.
Franken went after Bush and Limbaugh and O'Reilly (in person - he was sitting right next to him) for lying. I mean he really went after them. At the end of his talk he said that we're tired of the lies from the right and tired of just taking it and "we're not going to sit for it anymore, we just aren't." Franken's upcoming book is titled, "LIES, And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them:A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" and O'Reilly is on the cover.
Then today Paul Krugman's column just got real and said it.
It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.This stuff MATTERS. We went to WAR based on their lies! Bush lied, people died. As I am hearing more and more people saying, this is a lot worse than Watergate or Iran/Contra. This might even be worse than getting a blowjob!!!!!!!
So this might be a turning point, a "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moment that crystallizes people's thinking and helps guide them back to doing the right thing. It's hard to ignore this one. Getting us into a war is serious businesses. Many people died. We were asked to trust the President, that he knew things we didn't, that there were stockpiles of dangerous chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons -- and it's hard to reconcile that with what we have found on the ground. Now we're bogged down with at least 150,000 troops stuck there, getting shot at, for years. And if we leave there is little doubt that Iraq will become a Shiite fundamentalist country and that WILL be a threat to us. So this one is going to be very hard to slip past the public, even with the extent of control of the media they have now. They just lie and lie, and look where it gets us.
We're not going to sit for it anymore. We just aren't.
Update - Here, from a former war supporter.
I trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on the weapons front in Iraq soon, it appears as though I was fooled by him. Perhaps he himself was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers. If so, he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.Afternoon Update - Let's look at Senator Byrd's May 21 speech.
It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate. It isn't. More than 100 fine Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many thousands of Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill maneuvers over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments. War is a special case. It is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.
When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.
Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.Please go read the whole thing. As it begins to dawn on America that they were hoodwinked into war, I have a sense that we are experiencing history and this will go down as one of its great speeches.
But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.
...
The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.
What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S.
...
But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?
...
And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.
It's Just Gone
Also, read this letter from Charles Rangel. The Bush tax cuts were your Social Security and Medicare. The money is going to these tax cuts instead. No question about it. The money is just gone now, and you won't be getting Social Security or Medicare.
The Social Security and Medicare trust funds — financed through the payroll tax on workers — are being rapidly funneled out to "give the money back" to wealthy taxpayers. This lays the groundwork for the end of those two programs — not reform, end — because the money will simply not be there.So when you hear someone defending these tax cuts, ask them if they understand that it means no Social Security or Medicare for them.
Lying
I know you've seen this and I'm sure everyone else is putting this on their weblogs, but it is so important that I'm referring to it as well. Read Paul Krugman's column today!
I'm in a "light blogging" period, but I want to write about this and will soon. You know I've been writing about the lying that is going on.
I'm in a "light blogging" period, but I want to write about this and will soon. You know I've been writing about the lying that is going on.
6/02/2003
5/31/2003
Dean Meetups Wednesday
The next Howard Dean for President Meetup day is this coming Wednesday, June 4. If you have heard about Governor Dean and want to learn more, or already know enough and want to get more involved, or just want to go spend a couple of hours with other people who feel the way you do, then this is your chance.
When you arrive at your Meetup location you'll probably see a sign or someone with a Dean t-shirt on, maybe a sign-in table. Often these days you'll see a crowd. Usually they're at a coffee shop or somewhere that serves beer and can accommodate enough people. Usually Dean Meetups involve spending a bit of time mingling with other Dean supporters, then one or two people making a few announcements, and then showing a Dean speech or other video. After they finish people are asked if they want to join a committee to work on organizing, or perhaps to have a house party.
You can find out where your nearest meetup is at Dean2002.Meetup.com. At this website you can sign up, find a local Meetup, read messages from other local Dean supporters and learn more about the Meetup process. Meetup is not part of the Dean campaign, it is a commercial service that the Dean campaign is using for this purpose. Dean is currently the largest of Meetup's clients.
Go. You'll enjoy it and you'll feel like you are helping the country.
When you arrive at your Meetup location you'll probably see a sign or someone with a Dean t-shirt on, maybe a sign-in table. Often these days you'll see a crowd. Usually they're at a coffee shop or somewhere that serves beer and can accommodate enough people. Usually Dean Meetups involve spending a bit of time mingling with other Dean supporters, then one or two people making a few announcements, and then showing a Dean speech or other video. After they finish people are asked if they want to join a committee to work on organizing, or perhaps to have a house party.
You can find out where your nearest meetup is at Dean2002.Meetup.com. At this website you can sign up, find a local Meetup, read messages from other local Dean supporters and learn more about the Meetup process. Meetup is not part of the Dean campaign, it is a commercial service that the Dean campaign is using for this purpose. Dean is currently the largest of Meetup's clients.
Go. You'll enjoy it and you'll feel like you are helping the country.
5/30/2003
Getting Our Message Out
I have a piece at Smirking Chimp today. It's an improved version of a recent piece posted here. (Edited to make me look better.)
Go leave a comment.
Go leave a comment.
5/29/2003
Voting Machines Petition
Working For Change has a voting machines petition.
Stop the Florida-tion of the 2004 electionI think it's more about publicizing the problem than getting anything done. Imagine - giving a petition to Ashcroft and thinking anything is going to get done! But publicizing is good, so sign the petition and pass the word.
Computers threaten accountability of voting system
Today, there is a new and real threat to voters, this time coming from touchscreen voting machines with no paper trails and the computerized purges of voter rolls.
You can join SCLC President Martin Luther King III and investigative reporter Greg Palast in opposing the "Florida-tion" of the 2004 Presidential election by signing this petition. A complete copy of the petition will be delivered by Working Assets to Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Nothing But Lies
I'm loaded down today reading weblogs and pundits complaining about hypocrisy from the Bush administration on one issue after another. Altercation writes, "The hypocrisy of this administration is absolutely mind-boggling and the mainstream media are its unindicted co-conspirators." because the Bushies have been claiming they're doing a lot of help AIDS in Africa, when they are actually doing nothing. Tbogg is upset that the Bushies are lying about WMD, contracting out the federal workforce, saving Private Lynch, etc. Democratic Veteran says they say they want to win the "Hearts and Minds" of Iraqis but aren't DOING that, and saying we won in Iraq when we're still fighting, and going after Iran, etc. In the New York Times Bob Herbert writes about the Bush tax bill saying it's about job growth but having nothing in it that will grow jobs. And I just heard someone on a ieAmericaRadio.com show say "and it just turns out that everything they were saying was lies."
Come on! Don't you get it? This is not hypocrisy or stupidity or incompetence - this is laying down a smokescreen of words to cover their real agenda. Get used to it - they just lie. Everyone gets worked up about the illogical arguments they make, and spends so much time and energy arguing with what the Bush people are SAYING and not much time effectively fighting what they are DOING. Gosh, do you think that's part of their plan for getting things done?
Eschaton shows that he has a clue when he writes today, "At what point will our media just accept that they get nothing but lies?"
I'll be writing about the influence on the right wingers of philosopher Leo Strauss soon. He taught that deception is necessary in politics - leaders should tell the people what they need to tell them to keep them calm and then do what they think is best. Oh yeah, there is a lot more. Here's a good place to study up: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Come on! Don't you get it? This is not hypocrisy or stupidity or incompetence - this is laying down a smokescreen of words to cover their real agenda. Get used to it - they just lie. Everyone gets worked up about the illogical arguments they make, and spends so much time and energy arguing with what the Bush people are SAYING and not much time effectively fighting what they are DOING. Gosh, do you think that's part of their plan for getting things done?
Eschaton shows that he has a clue when he writes today, "At what point will our media just accept that they get nothing but lies?"
I'll be writing about the influence on the right wingers of philosopher Leo Strauss soon. He taught that deception is necessary in politics - leaders should tell the people what they need to tell them to keep them calm and then do what they think is best. Oh yeah, there is a lot more. Here's a good place to study up: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Corporate Share of Cost of Government
I was looking into what has happened to the share of taxes paid by corporations, and came across this interesting article, The 50-Year Swindle. Here are a few excerpts:
Anyway, the article has some good numbers to help you understand what has been happening to the tax structure over time, and some good stories. A good read.
Year by year during the last half of the twentieth century, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service have shifted the national tax burden away from corporations and onto the backs of individuals and families.Some ammunition for any of you who still bother to argue with right-wingers instead of just realizing that what they do is lay down a smokesreen of lies to cover what they are really doing... Much of this article does that -- it refutes the arguments of the right-wingers point by point. Of course, by the time the article had been written all the arguments had shifted, because they were never meant as serious arguments at all.
The numbers are painfully simple. After World War II, corporations and individuals carried the tax burden together. Year by year, this has been altered until the corporate-individual split is now closer to 20-to-80--and guess who pays the 80 percent?
In 1953, if you count only income taxes, not various other excises, sales taxes, and special duties, individuals and families paid 59 percent of federal revenues and corporations 41 percent, according to The Statistical Abstract of the United States. By the latest confirmed figures in the Abstract, the corporate share has dropped from 41 to 20 percent, while that of individuals has increased from 59 to 80 percent.
...
On the flip side, it has made corporations steadily larger and more powerful. This has led to the "legal corruption" of huge campaign contributions that accelerated the ability of corporations to avoid more and more of their responsibility for keeping the country's civic system in decent economic health.
The half-century of stealth attacks have had the insidious effect of conditioning most of the public to accept seemingly unconnected annual changes that, with time, look like acts of God or some force of economics beyond human intervention.
...
The big swindle that shifts taxes from corporations to individuals is concealed by another myth that politicians keep drumming into the American consciousness: The citizens of the United States are being crushed by ever-rising tax burdens. We are told that we're all taxed to the eyebrows and this must be changed. It is almost mandatory rhetoric in every election campaign.
But, according to the Century Foundation (formerly the middle-of-the-road Twentieth Century Fund) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), of all the industrialized democracies, the United States is near the bottom in paying taxes when calculated as a percentage of the country's total wealth, its Gross Domestic Product. Our total taxes as percentage of our GDP are 29.7 percent, Britain's are 33.6 percent; Canada's are 33.6 percent; Germany's are 39 percent; and Sweden's are 49.9 percent. If that makes us feel lucky, we need to add that all those other countries provide health, housing, and other services we do not.
Anyway, the article has some good numbers to help you understand what has been happening to the tax structure over time, and some good stories. A good read.
5/28/2003
The Mood of Intimidation In Bush's America
Here's a story about a teachers being punished for not supporting Bush enough. One was suspended for not taking down posters done by students - the pro-war posters were not "pro-war enough." Another was suspended because a student on the school's poetry-slam team read an anti-war poem. The poetry-slam team has also been disbanded. Four more were suspended for having anti-war posters in their classrooms. Most are terminated as of the end of this school year. All have letters inserted in their files which will make it difficult to find another job. And this is just in Albuquerque.
As I wrote below in Agents of The Party, "This is not a man condemning thuggery, this is a man gratefully utilizing it."
"Meanwhile, pro-war, militaristic signs, posters and bumper stickers abound at many Albuquerque and Rio Rancho schools."Has Bush spoken out condemning these violations of people's rights? Has he spoken out against the mood of intimidation that is spreading across America? After you're done spitting your coffee out of your nose and laughing, please remember to read the rest of Seeing the Forest.
As I wrote below in Agents of The Party, "This is not a man condemning thuggery, this is a man gratefully utilizing it."
Space - For Americans Only
tendentious brought to my attention that the U.S. is now talking about denying all other countries the use of space for intelligence gathering satellites. They're talking about total military domination of the planet.
If allies don't like the new paradigm of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have 'no veto power.'See PENTAGON: SPACE IS FOR AMERICANS ONLY at Defense Tech.
Another Stealth Bill
It looks like the new Defense Department authorization bill has a hidden surprise in it - it ends civil service protection for Pentagon employees! This means the loss of almost half the civil service union jobs in the country! Apparently the House has passed this but the Senate has not yet passed it. The American Federation of Government Employees has more information.
Please visit their website, and then call your Senators right away!
Please visit their website, and then call your Senators right away!
5/27/2003
"Starving the Beast"
Read this, Stating the Obvious from Krugman today.
If you asked the average Bush voter if they think Bush is trying to get rid of Social Security or Medicare they'll look at you like you are a crazy conspiracist. But how do you get through to them, when all of AM radio is a 24/7 Republican party ad, the TV networks replace Phil Donahue with Michael Savage, and most people won't go near a newspaper? Well, I've been writing about how to do that.
It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to suggest that the Bush administration's policies might actually be driven by those ideologues — that the administration was deliberately setting the country up for a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be sharply cut — was to be accused of spouting conspiracy theories.Then read this, Taxing Credibility by Bruce Bartlett from the LA Times Sunday, arguing from the right that yes this is exactly what they are doing, and for good reason.
Neoconservatives thought that attacking massively popular spending programs was both counterproductive and politically hopeless. Congress would never vote to cut such programs directly, and would not even restrain their growth unless under enormous political pressure.Yes, it's obvious, especially when they clearly say that their intent is to bankrupt the country IN ORDER TO get rid of Social Security and Medicare They call it "starving the beast" and they are proud to be bankrupting the country, because that brings the desired goal of getting rid of all of our pensions and health care.
And so, they approached things differently. First, they concluded that it is the relative size of government, not its absolute size, that is most important. In other words, government spending as a share of the gross domestic product was what mattered. For neocons, increasing the GDP is as important as lowering spending. Earlier conservatives had concentrated almost exclusively on controlling spending, assuming that increasing GDP was beyond government's grasp.
Second, neoconservatives absorbed the insights of Public Choice, an economic school led by Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan. One of Buchanan's theories, developed in academic papers and books during the mid-1970s, held that the size of government is better controlled on the tax side than the spending side. Cutting spending directly, while desirable, was often impossible in the absence of special circumstances, because the beneficiaries of spending were well organized and motivated, while those favoring lower spending were disorganized and diffused.
Neoconservatives saw tax cuts as a single solution to both problems. Lower tax rates would spur economic growth. If growth increased faster than spending, then spending's share of GDP would fall without the necessity of cutting spending directly. At the same time, they reasoned, budget deficits resulting from lower taxes would mobilize movements advocating reduced spending.
...
When California's Proposition 13 came along in 1978, Kristol saw another way in which tax cutting was useful. By denying government its fuel, tax cuts forced politicians to cut spending. In this sense, supply-side economics echoed the thinking of conservative economist Milton Friedman, who wrote in a 1978 column that "the only effective way to restrain government spending is by limiting government's explicit tax revenue — just as a limited income is the only effective restraint on any individual's or family's spending."
...
Starving the beast and increasing incentives for work, saving and investment are still good reasons to cut taxes today.
If you asked the average Bush voter if they think Bush is trying to get rid of Social Security or Medicare they'll look at you like you are a crazy conspiracist. But how do you get through to them, when all of AM radio is a 24/7 Republican party ad, the TV networks replace Phil Donahue with Michael Savage, and most people won't go near a newspaper? Well, I've been writing about how to do that.
Search is Gone
I got rid of the search capability becuase it sucked too much. One of these days Blogger will have its search working.
Update - Maybe one of these days Blogger will get Blogspot working, too!
Update - Maybe one of these days Blogger will get Blogspot working, too!
So Much for That Idea
The huge Bush tax cut was supposed to immediately lift the stock market, creating a "wealth effect" which would then boost consumer confidence and revive the economy.
Well, the tax cut passed Friday night. This is Tuesday morning (markets were closed yesterday), and the stock market opened ... down. Down 45 as I write, 5 minutes after the open.
Oops. Oh well, so much for that idea. Sorry about that HUGE increase in the deficit.
Update -The market went up later, because of consumer confidence and housing numbers. But the initial movement, in response to passing the tax cut bill, was down.
Well, the tax cut passed Friday night. This is Tuesday morning (markets were closed yesterday), and the stock market opened ... down. Down 45 as I write, 5 minutes after the open.
Oops. Oh well, so much for that idea. Sorry about that HUGE increase in the deficit.
Update -The market went up later, because of consumer confidence and housing numbers. But the initial movement, in response to passing the tax cut bill, was down.
5/26/2003
Who Is Responsible?
I'm reading this NY Times story about the Democrats trying to find a message, etc. I don't agree that the problem is that the Democrats don't have a message, or that it is their responsibility to develop one. Politicians RESPOND to the public. That's their job. A while back I wrote a piece about this, Don't Blame the Democrats. I'm going to repeat and expand on that piece here, and tell you who I blame - who I challenge to step up to the plate and fix this problem.
I have written about how the right has in place a broad, extremely well-funded "idea development and communication infrastructure" and how this has successfully moved the public to the right. This infrastructure consists of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute (the people who brought you the Iraq war) to develop and refine their ideology, and a communications infrastructure that pumps their message out. This is the "message amplification infrastructure." Some of the communication channels are Rush Limbaugh and all of AM radio, Fox News and most of the TV pundits, the Washington Times and other newspapers, various magazines, various book publishers, and numerous organizations endlessly repeating the ideological messages to the public.
As I wrote before: "After the public has been barraged with the messaging from The Mighty Wurlizter, the Republican politicians step in and harvest the results." In other words, politicians respond to the public. To change the country don't rely on the politicians, instead you must change the public. This is how the right has accomplished so much. They have been pumping their ideological message to the public, following a long-term strategy, and over time succeeded in moving the public to the right. Only then would the public vote for their candidates.
As one example of this process, let's look at the right's movement to get rid of public schools. For so many years the right-wing infrastructure has been pumping out the message that "public schools are failing." After some time, hearing this message over and over, a consensus grows that there is a problem with public schools. Right-wing politicians can then promise "solutions," like vouchers, and their message resonates with a public that is primed to believe there is a "problem" requiring a solution. This public is also primed, through repetition of other messaging, to believe that private companies are more effective than government, etc. So the environment for accepting private schools as a "solution" to the "problem" of failing public schools has been set up. (It doesn't matter if there really is a problem, as long as a large enough share of the voting public believes there is.)
Now contrast this with the progressive approach to the health care problem. A progressive politician can come to the public saying we need "single-payer health insurance" or even the shorter "universal health care." The response from the public is going to be, "What?" because so few of the public have heard of these terms, much less been pounded with progressive messages about the problems with the health care system. So the way things work now, progressive politicians have to come in explaining from scratch the problems, and trying to educate the public with their detailed solutions. This is because the support base for their ideas was not developed in advance by a comparable ideological infrastructure.
Do we blame the Democrats for this? The Republican Party "harvests" the environment set up by the well-funded "idea development and communication infrastructure." But it wasn't the Republican Party that set up this infrastructure. So I don't think we can blame the Democratic Party for the absence of a comparable infrastructure on the left. The right-wing infrastructure was set up by a few right-wing philanthropists with a vision and not by the Republican Party.
So when looking for someone to "blame" perhaps we should look to someone other than Democratic politicians. Perhaps we should look to the people who FUND moderates and progressives. Let me explain what I mean.
Here's how the right manages to have such an infrastructure in place, while progressives and moderates are left struggling with each other and barely getting their messages out to the public. There's a lot of money out there on the right, but there's also a lot of moderate and progressive money out there. The difference is that the right uses its money to provide general operating funding to "advocacy" organizations that exist to come up with ways to convince the public to vote Republican. The organizations on the right are funded just to exist, and the money continues year after year, so they do not have to spend so much of their time raising money, instead concentrating on effectively carrying out their ideological objectives.
On the other hand, moderate and progressive philanthropists have traditionally provided money for specific programs with the intent of doing good in specific ways. This system of "program funding" evolved as the best way to apply scarce resources to projects with goals for which there was a general public consensus of support. This system evolved at a time when helping the poor, protecting the environment were all widely supported by the public.
But now the right's ideology machine has eroded that public support, and the programs funded by this system are less effective. The right uses their machine to get politicians elected that will carry out their agenda of dismantling almost everything that the moderates and progressives have been funding. When this happens, the moderate and progressive money is wasted. The example I like to use is a program to protect a redwood grove, costing $500,000 a year for the last 10 years. But now an elected official issues a decree that the best way to protect forests from fire is to remove the trees, or an ideological judge rules that trees are better used for industry -- and just like that the redwood grove is gone, and the $5,000,000 spent over 10 years is completely wasted. AND on top of that the local radio stations are mocking the funders as "evironmental whackos" or "eco-terrorists," and perhaps people are picketing their offices with signs saying they are "anti-capitalist."
Program funding was not designed to counter the current destructive opposition from the right. Moderate and progressive funding must start taking this into account, and start building an infrastructure that reaches the general public with messaging that moves underlying attitudes back toward moderate and progressive principles. This would provide an environment where moderates and progressives can get public support to protect the programs that are so important to all of us.
Moderate and progressive philanthropists must step up to the plate. As with anything that has been in place for a long time, program funding is an entrenched system, with bureaucracies in place, and lots of careers depending on the system staying just the way it is. But moderate and progressive philanthropists and foundations must recognize that this is no longer the most effective use of their money. Moderate and progressive philanthropists and foundations must step up to the plate and begin providing general operating funding to advocacy organizations who will work to move the public back away from this right-wing ideological nonsense that we have been subjected to for so long! This will provide an underlying base of support for the programs we all care about. This will help persuade the public to elect candidates who will protect the programs they care about. This will persuade the public to support the organizations that are trying so hard to protect the environment and help the poor and all the rest. We all need the work done to strengthen the underlying public attitudes of support for these goals, to strengthen and build the base of support upon which the organizations and programs rest.
If you are fortunate enough to have possession of so much of the resources, you have the responsibility to use them in the best possible way. You have the duty to see that there is a threat from the right that must be countered. It is not the job of a political party - politicians respond to the public. It is your job to use your resources to educate the public, to move them back from the right, to counter the ideological propaganda that the right is bombarding us with, to defend the programs we all care so much about.
I have written about how the right has in place a broad, extremely well-funded "idea development and communication infrastructure" and how this has successfully moved the public to the right. This infrastructure consists of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute (the people who brought you the Iraq war) to develop and refine their ideology, and a communications infrastructure that pumps their message out. This is the "message amplification infrastructure." Some of the communication channels are Rush Limbaugh and all of AM radio, Fox News and most of the TV pundits, the Washington Times and other newspapers, various magazines, various book publishers, and numerous organizations endlessly repeating the ideological messages to the public.
As I wrote before: "After the public has been barraged with the messaging from The Mighty Wurlizter, the Republican politicians step in and harvest the results." In other words, politicians respond to the public. To change the country don't rely on the politicians, instead you must change the public. This is how the right has accomplished so much. They have been pumping their ideological message to the public, following a long-term strategy, and over time succeeded in moving the public to the right. Only then would the public vote for their candidates.
As one example of this process, let's look at the right's movement to get rid of public schools. For so many years the right-wing infrastructure has been pumping out the message that "public schools are failing." After some time, hearing this message over and over, a consensus grows that there is a problem with public schools. Right-wing politicians can then promise "solutions," like vouchers, and their message resonates with a public that is primed to believe there is a "problem" requiring a solution. This public is also primed, through repetition of other messaging, to believe that private companies are more effective than government, etc. So the environment for accepting private schools as a "solution" to the "problem" of failing public schools has been set up. (It doesn't matter if there really is a problem, as long as a large enough share of the voting public believes there is.)
Now contrast this with the progressive approach to the health care problem. A progressive politician can come to the public saying we need "single-payer health insurance" or even the shorter "universal health care." The response from the public is going to be, "What?" because so few of the public have heard of these terms, much less been pounded with progressive messages about the problems with the health care system. So the way things work now, progressive politicians have to come in explaining from scratch the problems, and trying to educate the public with their detailed solutions. This is because the support base for their ideas was not developed in advance by a comparable ideological infrastructure.
Do we blame the Democrats for this? The Republican Party "harvests" the environment set up by the well-funded "idea development and communication infrastructure." But it wasn't the Republican Party that set up this infrastructure. So I don't think we can blame the Democratic Party for the absence of a comparable infrastructure on the left. The right-wing infrastructure was set up by a few right-wing philanthropists with a vision and not by the Republican Party.
So when looking for someone to "blame" perhaps we should look to someone other than Democratic politicians. Perhaps we should look to the people who FUND moderates and progressives. Let me explain what I mean.
Here's how the right manages to have such an infrastructure in place, while progressives and moderates are left struggling with each other and barely getting their messages out to the public. There's a lot of money out there on the right, but there's also a lot of moderate and progressive money out there. The difference is that the right uses its money to provide general operating funding to "advocacy" organizations that exist to come up with ways to convince the public to vote Republican. The organizations on the right are funded just to exist, and the money continues year after year, so they do not have to spend so much of their time raising money, instead concentrating on effectively carrying out their ideological objectives.
On the other hand, moderate and progressive philanthropists have traditionally provided money for specific programs with the intent of doing good in specific ways. This system of "program funding" evolved as the best way to apply scarce resources to projects with goals for which there was a general public consensus of support. This system evolved at a time when helping the poor, protecting the environment were all widely supported by the public.
But now the right's ideology machine has eroded that public support, and the programs funded by this system are less effective. The right uses their machine to get politicians elected that will carry out their agenda of dismantling almost everything that the moderates and progressives have been funding. When this happens, the moderate and progressive money is wasted. The example I like to use is a program to protect a redwood grove, costing $500,000 a year for the last 10 years. But now an elected official issues a decree that the best way to protect forests from fire is to remove the trees, or an ideological judge rules that trees are better used for industry -- and just like that the redwood grove is gone, and the $5,000,000 spent over 10 years is completely wasted. AND on top of that the local radio stations are mocking the funders as "evironmental whackos" or "eco-terrorists," and perhaps people are picketing their offices with signs saying they are "anti-capitalist."
Program funding was not designed to counter the current destructive opposition from the right. Moderate and progressive funding must start taking this into account, and start building an infrastructure that reaches the general public with messaging that moves underlying attitudes back toward moderate and progressive principles. This would provide an environment where moderates and progressives can get public support to protect the programs that are so important to all of us.
Moderate and progressive philanthropists must step up to the plate. As with anything that has been in place for a long time, program funding is an entrenched system, with bureaucracies in place, and lots of careers depending on the system staying just the way it is. But moderate and progressive philanthropists and foundations must recognize that this is no longer the most effective use of their money. Moderate and progressive philanthropists and foundations must step up to the plate and begin providing general operating funding to advocacy organizations who will work to move the public back away from this right-wing ideological nonsense that we have been subjected to for so long! This will provide an underlying base of support for the programs we all care about. This will help persuade the public to elect candidates who will protect the programs they care about. This will persuade the public to support the organizations that are trying so hard to protect the environment and help the poor and all the rest. We all need the work done to strengthen the underlying public attitudes of support for these goals, to strengthen and build the base of support upon which the organizations and programs rest.
If you are fortunate enough to have possession of so much of the resources, you have the responsibility to use them in the best possible way. You have the duty to see that there is a threat from the right that must be countered. It is not the job of a political party - politicians respond to the public. It is your job to use your resources to educate the public, to move them back from the right, to counter the ideological propaganda that the right is bombarding us with, to defend the programs we all care so much about.
5/25/2003
5/24/2003
Bill To Fix Voting Machines
I just learned that Congressman Rush Holt has introduced legislation to require a voter-verified paper trail for electronic voting machines. There is a description of the bill here.
5/23/2003
Agents of "The Party"
You can see the controversial commencement speech where Chris Hedges was "booed off the stage" online now. You'll see that while some people stood and turned their backs it was actually just a few of the typically nasty and disruptive right-wing thug types who were shouting and blasting air-horns, even sneaking up and pulling the plug on the microphone. Most of the crowd was sitting calmly, wishing the ruffnecks would shut up. Some were shouting back at them "freedom of speech!" When the Dean asked the disrupting Party Members to allow the speaker to continue the crowd clapped and cheered. When Hedges finished there were as many people clapping as booing. Then some of the thugs rushed the state to threaten Hedges. (Keep in mind as you watch this that Hedges' message was simply, "war is bad.")
The message-amplification organs of The Party, fresh from their corporate-sponsored national trashing of the Dixie Chicks, trumpeted this event as another triumph for Bush and The Party, encouraging more of this sort of activity.
So here we have another example of what I'll call "agents of The Party" using thuggery - violating the rights of the rest of the crowd, shouting down a speaker for opposing The Party, and disrupting the graduation ceremony of a college - only to be praised in the media as heroes. Why do I call them "agents of The Party?" Because this behavior is occurring more and more in Bush's America, encouraged by "The Wurlitzer." Drudge shouts headlines of another pansy liberal "booed off the stage." Rush and Sean and all of AM radio talk about the elitist limousine liberal speaker out of touch with or hating America. Fox tells viewers of the heroes of Rockford patriotically rejecting the anti-American rant. Certainly no one from The Party has spoken up to denounce this type of behavior!
Bush's failure to condemn this signals his support and understanding of how it benefits his agenda. And occasionally he goes beyond silent approval, as he did with his endorsement the organized, coordinated campaign of intimidation against countries threatening to vote against us at the U.N.
The message-amplification organs of The Party, fresh from their corporate-sponsored national trashing of the Dixie Chicks, trumpeted this event as another triumph for Bush and The Party, encouraging more of this sort of activity.
So here we have another example of what I'll call "agents of The Party" using thuggery - violating the rights of the rest of the crowd, shouting down a speaker for opposing The Party, and disrupting the graduation ceremony of a college - only to be praised in the media as heroes. Why do I call them "agents of The Party?" Because this behavior is occurring more and more in Bush's America, encouraged by "The Wurlitzer." Drudge shouts headlines of another pansy liberal "booed off the stage." Rush and Sean and all of AM radio talk about the elitist limousine liberal speaker out of touch with or hating America. Fox tells viewers of the heroes of Rockford patriotically rejecting the anti-American rant. Certainly no one from The Party has spoken up to denounce this type of behavior!
Bush's failure to condemn this signals his support and understanding of how it benefits his agenda. And occasionally he goes beyond silent approval, as he did with his endorsement the organized, coordinated campaign of intimidation against countries threatening to vote against us at the U.N.
While Bush said he did not expect "significant retribution from the government" against Security Council member nations that didn't line up with the United States, he pointedly left open the possibility of a popular backlash.This is not a man condemning thuggery, this is a man gratefully utilizing it.
Blog Hero - Slactivist
I want to announce another Seeing the Forest Blog Hero award. Go read this by Fred Clark at Slacktivist, and you'll know why weblogs are important.
Thanks to Atrios for pointing to this.
Thanks to Atrios for pointing to this.
A Short Poem
It just doesn't seem
that God's chosen one
would be a creature of
lies and arrogance and privilege
and secrecy and war
that God's chosen one
would be a creature of
lies and arrogance and privilege
and secrecy and war
5/22/2003
These Things MATTER!
An excellent column in today's NY Times, by Bob Herbert, Dancing With the Devil. Companies like Haliburton do business with America's enemies, and cheat our government. Meanwhile, the Dixie Chicks (and France and so many others) are subjected to an orchestrated campaign of derision from agents of The Party, with the press playing along.
All this energy and public attention focused on political protection of The Party. So little energy and attention focused on actually protecting the country and its people. No probe of the failures of our government to prevent the 9/11 attack, and how we can improve the government's efforts to stop such attacks, and the relevant documents all classified. No press coverage of The Party blocking the probe. But Haliburton and others are left alone, even rewarded with huge government contracts.
Here's what I think. 9/11 did "change everything." 9/11 showed why these things matter. 9/11 showed that the people of our country are vulnerable to attack and why we don't have time for this political nonsense that the right is subjecting us to. Before 9/11 we got used to orchestrated character assassination campaigns, like that conducted against President Clinton. After 9/11 we should all understand that it is important to stop this kind of nonsense, and restore a free press, because a REAL free press looks into the weaknesses of our government's efforts to protect us! But instead we get a double dose of propaganda and ass-covering. We get an administration with "no policy apparatus at all" -- only political manipulation.
For example, here is why it is important to know if the lack of WMD in Iraq is the result of an intelligence screw-up: If they could screw up that bad on such an important issue, then we have absolutely no assurance that they are effectively protecting us from terrorist attack.
These things MATTER! There ARE people attacking us, and right now we need an honest government and an honest press more than ever.
All this energy and public attention focused on political protection of The Party. So little energy and attention focused on actually protecting the country and its people. No probe of the failures of our government to prevent the 9/11 attack, and how we can improve the government's efforts to stop such attacks, and the relevant documents all classified. No press coverage of The Party blocking the probe. But Haliburton and others are left alone, even rewarded with huge government contracts.
Here's what I think. 9/11 did "change everything." 9/11 showed why these things matter. 9/11 showed that the people of our country are vulnerable to attack and why we don't have time for this political nonsense that the right is subjecting us to. Before 9/11 we got used to orchestrated character assassination campaigns, like that conducted against President Clinton. After 9/11 we should all understand that it is important to stop this kind of nonsense, and restore a free press, because a REAL free press looks into the weaknesses of our government's efforts to protect us! But instead we get a double dose of propaganda and ass-covering. We get an administration with "no policy apparatus at all" -- only political manipulation.
For example, here is why it is important to know if the lack of WMD in Iraq is the result of an intelligence screw-up: If they could screw up that bad on such an important issue, then we have absolutely no assurance that they are effectively protecting us from terrorist attack.
These things MATTER! There ARE people attacking us, and right now we need an honest government and an honest press more than ever.
Today's Google Experiment
Anyone else old enough to remember just after Reagan took office, one of his "kitchen cabinet" was revealed to be involved in an orgy scene with a model who was later killed with a baseball bat? It's an intriguing story, and reveals a lot about the history of right-wingers campaigning on "morality" to get votes, then once in office divide up the loot from the US treasury.
For today's Google experiment let's search on "bloomingdale vicki morgan baseball bat" and see what turns up.
For today's Google experiment let's search on "bloomingdale vicki morgan baseball bat" and see what turns up.
No WMDs
The right wingers now say that the reason for invading Iraq was to topple the dictator and liberate the Iraqi people.
OK, fine. So, in answer to the pre-war question, "Won't any Iraq war be a distraction from the war on terrorism, taking necessary resources from the battle to protect the country from al-Queda?," their answer is a resounding, "Yes!"
In the middle of this "war on terrorism" they took time out "free the Iraqi people." Great. What about US?
OK, fine. So, in answer to the pre-war question, "Won't any Iraq war be a distraction from the war on terrorism, taking necessary resources from the battle to protect the country from al-Queda?," their answer is a resounding, "Yes!"
In the middle of this "war on terrorism" they took time out "free the Iraqi people." Great. What about US?
5/21/2003
Savage Sleaze
A friend of mine has a website, www.savagestupidity.com. From the website:
He needs some help. He doesn't have the money to get a lawyer to defend himself and to get organized, contact organizations, etc. If you have even an extra $5, please go to his site and donate to help him out! Of course a larger amount would help even more.
I'll post more as I find out more information.
Well, he's getting SUED by Michael Savage! Savage is also trying to take away his domain name savagestupidity.com as a trademark infringement! Go to the savagestupidity website for details.Stuck Listening to the Savage Nation,
Even Though You're a Liberal (or Leftist)?
Or Just a Conservative Fed Up With Michael Savage?
This web site is for you!
He needs some help. He doesn't have the money to get a lawyer to defend himself and to get organized, contact organizations, etc. If you have even an extra $5, please go to his site and donate to help him out! Of course a larger amount would help even more.
I'll post more as I find out more information.
Oops
Remember the tax cut that passed the Senate because Republican gimmicks made it appear to be "only" $350 billion, which the Democrats had already been tricked into approving? Well, oops, it was really $420 billion. But it's too late to be stopped now because it has already passed out of the Senate.
And the reason for the oops was that the amount was calculated as if the dividend tax cut applied only to dividends paid out of "current-year earnings." But, from the same story, "Due to a drafting error, the tax cut actually covered dividends based on accumulated earnings." This is a BIG oops here. It means that companies like Microsoft can issue a huge dividend out of the $40 billion they are sitting on with NO TAXES paid by the recipients! By making this apply to money already saved up in corporations this is just a huge windfall with no policy incentives whatsoever, because whatever reasons for encouraging corporations to start to operate in a way that causes them to start paying dividends certainly doesn't apply to however they operated in the past, when they saved up the accumulated earnings. Oops. An accident. Right.
A previous "accident" made the tax cut cover companies that do not pay any taxes - meaning the money is never taxed - as well as companies that do pay taxes. This makes the "taxed twice" argument out to be a lie.
Se everything about this dividend tax cut has been a lie or a trick! They just say a bunch of stuff, and then go ahead and do something entirely different.
And the reason for the oops was that the amount was calculated as if the dividend tax cut applied only to dividends paid out of "current-year earnings." But, from the same story, "Due to a drafting error, the tax cut actually covered dividends based on accumulated earnings." This is a BIG oops here. It means that companies like Microsoft can issue a huge dividend out of the $40 billion they are sitting on with NO TAXES paid by the recipients! By making this apply to money already saved up in corporations this is just a huge windfall with no policy incentives whatsoever, because whatever reasons for encouraging corporations to start to operate in a way that causes them to start paying dividends certainly doesn't apply to however they operated in the past, when they saved up the accumulated earnings. Oops. An accident. Right.
A previous "accident" made the tax cut cover companies that do not pay any taxes - meaning the money is never taxed - as well as companies that do pay taxes. This makes the "taxed twice" argument out to be a lie.
Se everything about this dividend tax cut has been a lie or a trick! They just say a bunch of stuff, and then go ahead and do something entirely different.
Creating Jobs
How about this? We launch a Federal program to hire people to retrofit federal, then state, then municipal buildings to be more energy efficient. Then start on private commercial buildings, then homes. Just think about the incredible benefits this would bring to all of us. Lower payments for energy, meaning more to spend on other priorities, public and personal. Lower costs for all U.S.-produced goods because all businesses would be paying less for energy. Lower overall demand for energy, bringing the costs down for the remaining amounts purchased. Lower demand for oil from the Middle-East. Not to mention the boost to the economy from hiring everyone who needs a job (and giving them a good wage and health insurance.)
Pay for this with a tax on wealth. The tax would be, perhaps, 10% of holdings over $100 million. Shucks! A person with $100 million would "only" have $90 million left! But that would quickly be made up by the incredibly boosted economy.
Pay for this with a tax on wealth. The tax would be, perhaps, 10% of holdings over $100 million. Shucks! A person with $100 million would "only" have $90 million left! But that would quickly be made up by the incredibly boosted economy.
5/19/2003
DLC Increases Attack on Dean
The DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) increased their attack on Governor Dean today with a memo saying that the "intensity of their favorable reaction" of union members to hearing Dean speak proves that Dean is unelectable because union members "reflect views that are vastly different from those of rank-and-file Democrats around the country, not to mention the Independents who often dominate not only general elections but even primaries."
I think that says a LOT more about the DLC than it says about Dean.
I think that says a LOT more about the DLC than it says about Dean.
The "Aspirin Factory"
How many of you have heard (and possibly even repeated) the story that President Clinton "bombed an aspirin factory" to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky story? I just heard it repeated on the Peter Werbe radio show.
In light of current events I think it's a good idea to let people know what really happened. On August 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al-Queda, killing 257 people. In response, on August 20, 1998, President Clinton ordered a massive cruise missile attack on an al-Queda training camp in Afghanistan, and an attack on a chemical plant in Sudan. The attack missed killing bin Laden by a very short time. Here is a USA Today story on the attack. Here is a 1999 BBC roundup of stories about this.
From President Clinton's statement to the public, at the time -- remember, this is 1998, three years before 9/11:
In light of current events I think it's a good idea to let people know what really happened. On August 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al-Queda, killing 257 people. In response, on August 20, 1998, President Clinton ordered a massive cruise missile attack on an al-Queda training camp in Afghanistan, and an attack on a chemical plant in Sudan. The attack missed killing bin Laden by a very short time. Here is a USA Today story on the attack. Here is a 1999 BBC roundup of stories about this.
From President Clinton's statement to the public, at the time -- remember, this is 1998, three years before 9/11:
Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.So when you hear that Clinton "bombed an aspirin factory," think about how this fits into the pattern of Republican lies claiming that President Clinton did little to fight terrorism and WMD (it was a chemical plant that they thought was making nerve gas components for bin Laden) in general and bin-Laden in particular. Think about how Republican criticism of Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts actually helped al-Queda and helped keep us unprepared for what happened on 9/11. And think about how their furthering this story is part of an attempt to cover up their own share of the responsibility for what happened.
...
Earlier today, the United States carried out simultaneous strikes against terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Laden network's infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe.
We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions.
Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden network. The factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons.
Making the Integrity of Electronic Voting Into a National Issue
The Commonweal Institute, (http://www.commonwealinstitute.org) is launching a project to publicize the problems with electronic voting machines, and to make this a national issue.
For a description of this project please see "Making the Integrity of Electronic Voting Into a National Issue," online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/VotingMachinesProject.htm.
Also, Commonweal is introducing a collection of links to articles and resources on this subject. This collection is online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/VotingMachineLinks.html. This is a good collection to refer people to if they want to learn about this issue.
You can help bring this important issue to the attention of the public by making a tax-free donation to help launch this project online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/youcanhelp.html.
If you are in a position or know someone who is in a position to contribute a substantial amount to help launch this project, please contact Kate Forrest at Commonweal at 650-330-1395 or by e-mail at kforrest@commonwealinstitute.org.
Please consider copying this and sending it as an e-mail message to people who you know who are aware of this issue.
For a description of this project please see "Making the Integrity of Electronic Voting Into a National Issue," online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/VotingMachinesProject.htm.
Also, Commonweal is introducing a collection of links to articles and resources on this subject. This collection is online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/VotingMachineLinks.html. This is a good collection to refer people to if they want to learn about this issue.
You can help bring this important issue to the attention of the public by making a tax-free donation to help launch this project online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/youcanhelp.html.
If you are in a position or know someone who is in a position to contribute a substantial amount to help launch this project, please contact Kate Forrest at Commonweal at 650-330-1395 or by e-mail at kforrest@commonwealinstitute.org.
Please consider copying this and sending it as an e-mail message to people who you know who are aware of this issue.
They Get It!
Here is a voting machines op-ed piece,"Voters must have faith in the vote count," by my local chief elections officer, in San Mateo County, California. I recommend printing this out and mailing it to the elections official in YOUR county! (And the link is to the version formatted for printing!)
The answer is so that California can have an accurate vote count and avoid the chaotic election scenarios that other states have experienced. The verification of the vote can help ensure the integrity of election results.And here is the San Jose Mercury News' editorial today on the subject.
The way a voter would check his or her vote is simple. After he or she completes the electronic ballot, a paper summary prints out, and the paper record is compared to the electronic record. Once satisfied, the voter pushes a button, and the ballot is cast. The electronic ballot gets stored in computer memory, and the paper ballot is deposited into a locked ballot box.
...
The choice of providing voters an opportunity to check their votes is upon us. The consequences are serious. One computer scientist has said, ``Touch-screen voting systems have fatal security flaws so dangerous that they could allow people with access to the software to modify election results on a national level, and without detection. It is a matter of national security that we fix these flaws.''
Dozens of computer scientists, led by Stanford University Professor David Dill, have been calling for this reform. It's disappointing that most county election officials have been defensive instead of open-minded. They don't want to admit that they've been bamboozled by vendors' claims that the touch-screen systems are infallible. They don't want to concede that the software glitches and malfunctions that impeded elections in Florida last year and elsewhere could happen here.Hooray for the San Jose Mercury News! They get it!
Slocum has suggested how a paper audit might work. After you voted electronically, the machine would print out a copy of your ballot for you to look at but not touch. The printed ballots would be machine-readable (no more hand recounts), in large print and capable of being printed in many languages. If you or the touch-screen machine made a mistake, you'd catch the error and fix it before casting a final ballot.
5/18/2003
Dean on C-SPAN
I'm watching Governor Dean doing a town meeting in Iowa, on C-SPAN right now. It's on again at 6:30pm tonite Pacific time. This guy is great! I can't imagine any Democrat watching this and voting for anyone else.
Update - I can't wait to see the next Iowa poll!!!
Update - You can now watch it online here.
Update - I can't wait to see the next Iowa poll!!!
Update - You can now watch it online here.
5/17/2003
Dean Interview at Liberal Oasis
Liberal Oasis has an interview with Presidential Candidate Governor Howard Dean,
5/16/2003
Help Me Understand
Read this, then tell me what the "endgame" of currency rebalancing will be? If the dollar plunges, which our massive current-account deficit demands, what happens to our economy? If that forces Europe and Japan into recession and deflation, then how much boost will the lower dollar give us, since they'll have trouble buying things from us? It WILL stop our deflation, which is good, but what else does it do for us? Help me out.
And how much effect is the widening gap between rich and poor having on all of this? If the general public has no savings, lots of debt, and less and less of the overall wealth, then how can "stimulus" do much good? It seems that most of the "stimulus" winds up going to fewer and fewer rich people. Seems to me that the rest of us gotta get rid of some of that debt and get a bigger share of the wealth before we can increase their consumption.
Help me out, leave a comment.
And how much effect is the widening gap between rich and poor having on all of this? If the general public has no savings, lots of debt, and less and less of the overall wealth, then how can "stimulus" do much good? It seems that most of the "stimulus" winds up going to fewer and fewer rich people. Seems to me that the rest of us gotta get rid of some of that debt and get a bigger share of the wealth before we can increase their consumption.
Help me out, leave a comment.
Senate Democrats Tricked Again
Do you remember when the DEMOCRATS in the Senate voted for a $350 billion tax cut? At the time I wrote, "The country has massive deficits, we are at war, programs that help the public are being slashed - and Democrats vote for another tax cut!"
But this was portrayed as a "victory" - the Democrats blocking an even bigger tax cut. Some "victory," huh?
Well guess what? The Senate today passed a mix of gimmicks designed to get around this $350 billion limit. For one thing, they eliminate taxes on dividends, but only until 2007. This trick keeps the bill within the already-agreed-to $350 limit, which means that it cannot be filibustered. So even though only three Democrats voted for this today, their previous "victory" means they can do nothing to block this sham that will further bankrupt the country. (Actually, the bill lowers taxes on the rich by $420 billion, but makes up for it by increasing taxes on middle-class workers, for example, increasing taxes on Americans working overseas.)
Meanwhile, Bush started today working to get all these limiting gimmicks made permanent. The Democrats, with their "victory," fell RIGHT into this trap. They should have had the integrity to simply vote against ANY tax cut at a time of massive deficits. I wonder if they ever heard the expression, "too clever by half?"
Update - It's much worse than it looks!
Update - Certain companies that have been sitting on huge, huge hoards of cash can issue dividends now, and get it out of the way before 2007. I think this could save Gates about $8 billion in taxes.
But this was portrayed as a "victory" - the Democrats blocking an even bigger tax cut. Some "victory," huh?
Well guess what? The Senate today passed a mix of gimmicks designed to get around this $350 billion limit. For one thing, they eliminate taxes on dividends, but only until 2007. This trick keeps the bill within the already-agreed-to $350 limit, which means that it cannot be filibustered. So even though only three Democrats voted for this today, their previous "victory" means they can do nothing to block this sham that will further bankrupt the country. (Actually, the bill lowers taxes on the rich by $420 billion, but makes up for it by increasing taxes on middle-class workers, for example, increasing taxes on Americans working overseas.)
Meanwhile, Bush started today working to get all these limiting gimmicks made permanent. The Democrats, with their "victory," fell RIGHT into this trap. They should have had the integrity to simply vote against ANY tax cut at a time of massive deficits. I wonder if they ever heard the expression, "too clever by half?"
Update - It's much worse than it looks!
Vowing to tax income only once, Bush had said dividends should be tax-free only if they were paid out of fully taxed corporate profits. But for the sake of simplicity, the Senate bill breaks from that principle. Investors who own shares in corporations that pay little or no federal taxes would pay no taxes at the corporate or individual level.Got that? You own a million shares in a company that moves to a mailbox in Bermuda to avoid paying ANY U.S. taxes. They company sends you a dividend and you never pay taxes on that either. The money is NEVER taxed. How long will it take for all the rich fucks to buy a zillion shares of these companies, or move their companies to Bermuda, and never again pay ANY taxes. This is a HUGE incentive to pull all money out of any company that pays any U.S. taxes, or to get your company to stop paying U.S. taxes. AND it is a huge incentive to pull your money out of any investment of any kind that does not pay dividends, and out of any company that reinvests profits in things like research, employee benefits, pensions, etc. The ONLY thing that matters now will be dividends. NO taxes at all!
"This kind of gives the lie to the argument that what this is all about is eliminating the double taxation of dividends," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Update - Certain companies that have been sitting on huge, huge hoards of cash can issue dividends now, and get it out of the way before 2007. I think this could save Gates about $8 billion in taxes.
5/15/2003
Zizka Moved
Zizka has a new URL. Always, always worth reading! Go read his twelve reasons why he isn't much fun anymore.
Molly!
Molly Ivins: "If it makes no difference whether the government lied, why is Friedman a journalist? Why does journalism exist at all?"
Electronic Voting Machines Story in NY Times
This story, To Register Doubts, Press Here in the NY Times today.
Here is my question. Why are the voting machine companies working so hard to defend what they are selling? They would MAKE MORE MONEY if they sold systems that also printed out a voter-verifiable ballot that could be used as a backup and for recounts! So it doesn't make sense that they aren't pushing for that. Unless...
Note - I am quoting more extensively than I usually would because of the NY Times new policy of making readers pay to see stories after a month or so.
But not everyone likes the switch to electronic balloting. Some of the loudest opposition, in fact, is coming from computer experts who say the new technology could prove more troublesome than its predecessors. They warn of equipment malfunction, unchecked tampering and the lack of secure proof for each vote.I'll tell you what. If you think I'm going to go into a voting booth and touch a screen and leave the booth without some way of knowing what that machine recorded as my vote, then you've got another think coming. If I don't see for myself where that machine put down that I did not vote for Bush, then I do not believe that the machine didn't and that's all there is to it. You can substitute Hillary Clinton's name there and pretend you're hearing this on the Rush Limbaugh show, because there's no reason for them to trust this, either. It's suspicious that they aren't complaining.
A group of more than 100 technologists, led by David Dill, a professor of computer science at Stanford University, has called for tighter security measures on electronic voting apparatus and a "voter-verifiable audit trail," meaning a permanent record of each vote that can be checked for accuracy even after the election. (The group's "resolution on electronic voting" is at verify.stanford.edu/evote.html.)
Without such a trail, Dr. Dill warned, if a machine is tampered with or malfunctions, "then the votes in question are corrupted and you have no option but to hold another election or accept bad results." Thus the only reliable backup, the group contends, is for the machines to print out paper ballots after each vote, which can be hand-counted if necessary.
Dr. Dill and his counterparts, who in- clude computer science experts in academia and Silicon Valley, also assert that unlike more mechanical machines, electronic systems cannot be opened up to the public for verification. And the only people who know what is encoded on them are computer experts. "I think it's unreasonable for the public to be asked to accept the security of these machines on blind faith," he said. "There's no question the technology is open to tampering."
...
Paul Terwilliger, director of product development at Sequoia Voting Systems, one of the largest manufacturers of electronic systems, said that while no one disputes the need for safeguards, complaints about machines like his company's were uninformed. "I think the concerns being raised are 100 percent valid," Mr. Terwilliger said. "However, they're being raised by people who have little idea about what actually goes on."
Mr. Radke of Diebold added that voters have more, not less, confidence in electronic machines. He pointed to a study conducted in February at the University of Georgia that found that 70 percent of voters in the state's November 2002 elections, which were conducted on Diebold machines, reported being very confident that their vote was accurately counted. When this question was asked in September 2001, before electronic voting was in place in the state, only 56 percent of Georgia voters reported being very confident.
...
Mike Kernell, a longtime Tennessee state assemblyman from Memphis and a technology enthusiast, is concerned about future elections because the new machines are harder to get a look at. "We used to be able to check the machines and see if they'd been tampered with," he said. "It is now almost impossible." Mr. Kernell wonders whether he will have to hire a computer programmer in his next race to make sure the machines are working smoothly and haven't been tampered with. "We've hit a brick wall," he said.
Along with Dr. Dill, endorsers of the resolution include professors from Yale, M.I.T., Princeton, the University of California at Berkeley, Bryn Mawr and Johns Hopkins, as well as industry experts from Apple, Sun Microsystems, Cisco and Unisys. Dr. Mercuri has written substantially on electronic voting and is one of the group's most outspoken members. She worries that no electronic voting system has been certified to even the lowest level of federal government or international computer security standards, nor has any been required to comply with such.
Dr. Mercuri said the machines had had problems in some elections. In March 2002, for example, in Wellington, Fla. (in Palm Beach County, the epicenter of the 2000 dispute), there were 78 unrecorded ballots in a City Council election conducted with electronic machines. That represents about 3 percent of the total votes.
"Computers are good for many things, but at the same time we need to be cautious. If a machine's not functioning, then it might not be able to shut itself down," Dr. Mercuri said.
Here is my question. Why are the voting machine companies working so hard to defend what they are selling? They would MAKE MORE MONEY if they sold systems that also printed out a voter-verifiable ballot that could be used as a backup and for recounts! So it doesn't make sense that they aren't pushing for that. Unless...
Note - I am quoting more extensively than I usually would because of the NY Times new policy of making readers pay to see stories after a month or so.
5/14/2003
Domestic Political Espionage By Dept. Of Homeland Security
The first documented use of the Department of Homeland Security by the Republican Party for domestic political espionage against Democrats. The first, but surely not the last.
Are you surprised? Shocked? WHY? That's what the Department of Homeland Security is FOR! Remember how it was formed? Remember the fight over allowing unions or not? This is an entirely political operation from its very founding. Along with the FBI it is the political espionage arm of the Republican Party. Don't any of you remember Richard Nixon? This is what Republicans DO.
Are you also going to be surprised if John Poindexter's Office of Information Awareness is used for political espionage? Why do you think they put convicted criminal John Poindexter in charge of it?
Are you surprised? Shocked? WHY? That's what the Department of Homeland Security is FOR! Remember how it was formed? Remember the fight over allowing unions or not? This is an entirely political operation from its very founding. Along with the FBI it is the political espionage arm of the Republican Party. Don't any of you remember Richard Nixon? This is what Republicans DO.
Are you also going to be surprised if John Poindexter's Office of Information Awareness is used for political espionage? Why do you think they put convicted criminal John Poindexter in charge of it?
Stop the FCC
As a blog reader you are probably already aware of the issue of media consolidation. This is one of the most important issues there is right now and you should be active. Here's a brief explanation from MoveOn:
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission intends to lift restrictions on media ownership that could allow your local newspaper, cable provider, radio stations, and TV channels all to be owned by one company. The result could be the disappearance of the checks and balances provided by a competitive media marketplace -- and huge cutbacks in local news and reporting. Good, balanced information is the basis for our democracy.Be sure to sign MoveOn's petition!
What's The Point?
Why do so many bloggers from "the left" write about what Andrew Sullivan says? Why should anyone care what he says? Why should anyone be reading him, to know what he says? Why promote him by using his name? When you write about what he says, you're telling your readers that what he says matters. It doesn't.
This is the first and hopefully last time I ever use his name here. I don't read him. I wrote this about this issue once before:
This is the first and hopefully last time I ever use his name here. I don't read him. I wrote this about this issue once before:
Blog readers may have noticed that there are certain popular blog topics that I have avoided. I have specifically avoided ever mentioning a certain writer whose initials, if you add an 'S', would be "ASS."The piece was titled Journalistic Integrity.
Something's Up
There were only 62 spams in the e-mail this morning. Something's up! Yes, I know I'll get approx. 300 more during the day but usually there's usually more than 62 in the morning.
5/13/2003
The Next Corner After That
This at CNN: Poll: Consumer confidence is fading.
I suspect that THIS time they aren't going to be so easily led around by the nose by the ever-optimistic business press. We'll see.
The stock market is up HOW much since the war started?
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Consumer confidence continued to fade last week, following a brief spike during the war in Iraq.Remember when Bush said his tax cuts would make the economy recover? This time the public was told that the war would restore the economy. It didn't. It has been one promise after another. My feeling is that this was about the last time the public is going to listen to a "prosperity is just around the corner" message.
The ABC News/Money magazine Consumer Comfort Index, based on ratings of current economic conditions, stands at -24 on a scale of positive-100 to negative-100 for the week ended May 11. The index surged by 13 points from March 23 through April 20, reaching a seven-month high.
I suspect that THIS time they aren't going to be so easily led around by the nose by the ever-optimistic business press. We'll see.
The stock market is up HOW much since the war started?
My Blogroll
My blogroll has gotten out of hand. I'm going to do something about it, just not sure what. I hate to divide it into "daily reads" and "other blogs", or something like that -- I don't want people to know whether I read them daily or not. But it is just too long - just too many good blogs. Any suggestions?
Moral Politics
TomPaine.com has an interview with George Lakoff. If you read nothing else today, please read this. I think Lakoff's view of how people use family metaphors as a basis for their political thinking is very important for understanding what is going on in the minds of conservatives and liberals. It boils down to "Strict Father" and "Nurturing Parent" viewpoints. (Which are you?)
Update - Here is part 2 of the interview.
Update - Here is part 2 of the interview.
Media Consolidation
Please go to Ruminate This and read everything on the FCC and media consolidation. Ruminate has been following this story and agitating with some suggestions for actions.
5/12/2003
5/10/2003
Your Privacy
Reading this Joe Conason piece in Salon, about Bush's latest right-wingnut judicial nominee, I came across this line,
And the other day I wrote this piece, It's Privacy They Have A Problem With, which pointed out that Senator Santorum was not only against gays having the right to have consensual sex, he opposed the idea that ANY Americans have a right to privacy.
How many people remember that one of the main reasons Robert Bork was rejected as a Supreme Court nominee was that he held that there is no "right to privacy" under the Constitution?
The reason that the wingnuts have such a problem with the idea of Americans having a right to privacy dates back to the 1965 Griswold vs Connecticut case, which overturned a Connecticut statute which made it a crime to use devices or materials to prevent conception. The Court said that a married couple has a right of privacy that cannot be infringed upon by a state law. This led to the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that held that the right of privacy encompasses a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
In order to make abortion illegal again, they have to get judges into the court system who will rule that we do not have a right to privacy. This will, of course, lead to other areas where the government no longer leaves us alone, including going back to banning birth control. Who knows what else this will open up? And this is serious shit -- they really ARE trying to go in this direction.
"Evidently Kuhl didn't regard these outrages as an invasion of the patient's privacy."Yesterday, reading this from BuzzFlash, The Karl Rove PR Machine Keeps All the Right Wing Shills on Message Point, Even Jerry Falwell, I come across this, written by Jerry Falwell about the judicial nominee standoff,
"For the past two years - two years! - two of President Bush's judicial nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have been maligned and smeared by Senate Democrats who have ignored their superb and celebrated legal careers.That is Jerry Falwell complaining that Democrats are trying to block judges who don't think we have a right to privacy.
The reason? Neither nominee has endorsed the ambiguous "right to privacy" that abortion supporters declare is to be found in the U.S. Constitution."
And the other day I wrote this piece, It's Privacy They Have A Problem With, which pointed out that Senator Santorum was not only against gays having the right to have consensual sex, he opposed the idea that ANY Americans have a right to privacy.
How many people remember that one of the main reasons Robert Bork was rejected as a Supreme Court nominee was that he held that there is no "right to privacy" under the Constitution?
The reason that the wingnuts have such a problem with the idea of Americans having a right to privacy dates back to the 1965 Griswold vs Connecticut case, which overturned a Connecticut statute which made it a crime to use devices or materials to prevent conception. The Court said that a married couple has a right of privacy that cannot be infringed upon by a state law. This led to the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that held that the right of privacy encompasses a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
In order to make abortion illegal again, they have to get judges into the court system who will rule that we do not have a right to privacy. This will, of course, lead to other areas where the government no longer leaves us alone, including going back to banning birth control. Who knows what else this will open up? And this is serious shit -- they really ARE trying to go in this direction.
End Limited Liability!
Op-ed in the NY Times today, Reward but No Risk.
The public does not generally understand that the owners of corporations are not liable for the things that the corporations do, and the debts they run up. But corporations are granted limited liability by our government, which means that the owners shielded from responsibility for what the corporation does, and from its debts. This is a HUGE benefit, and is something that we the public are free to change.
It is finally time someone is bringing this to the attention of the public! If the owners of corporations want all these financial benefits and power, then they should be asked to actually compete in a free market! YES! Why should they be shielded from the responsibilities the rest of us "persons" have while enjoying the benefits of being "persons?"
Learn about this, become active, write to your Congressional representatives asking that the benefit of corporate limited liability be ended.
Update - This op-ed was there this morning. I found it in the archives and updated the link here, but it is no longer linked from the online NYTimes Op-ed page. Can someone explain to me where it went?
The public does not generally understand that the owners of corporations are not liable for the things that the corporations do, and the debts they run up. But corporations are granted limited liability by our government, which means that the owners shielded from responsibility for what the corporation does, and from its debts. This is a HUGE benefit, and is something that we the public are free to change.
Under current law, if I invest in an incorporated company, the only money I risk losing is that with which I bought the shares of stock. So if Exxon destroys a sizable section of Alaska's coastline; if R. J. Reynolds directly contributes to the astronomical health care costs of smoking; or if Enron goes belly up, leaving many unpaid accounts, the most their victims can retrieve is the value of the corporation's assets. Once the value of the company — and thus the shares — is driven down to zero, creditors and litigants are out of luck.YES YES YES!!! Why should the shareholders be granted HUGE benefits through limited risk, at the same time as they are handed HUGE tax breaks, and the corporations are granted huge power? A corporation, under current law, is considered a "person" and has the rights of a "person," including free speech - which is why it is so hard to change the campaign finance laws. But the owners of the corporation do NOT have the same responsibilities as a "person" when it comes to paying debts.
...
Fair is fair: let's get rid of the dividend tax, but only in exchange for a real free market.
It is finally time someone is bringing this to the attention of the public! If the owners of corporations want all these financial benefits and power, then they should be asked to actually compete in a free market! YES! Why should they be shielded from the responsibilities the rest of us "persons" have while enjoying the benefits of being "persons?"
Learn about this, become active, write to your Congressional representatives asking that the benefit of corporate limited liability be ended.
Update - This op-ed was there this morning. I found it in the archives and updated the link here, but it is no longer linked from the online NYTimes Op-ed page. Can someone explain to me where it went?
5/09/2003
Ass-Kicking Meanies
Ted Rall:
Update - On reflection (and reading the first comment) I guess I don't that good about this because some of this is a personal attack. Perhaps a similarly hard-hitting attack that is not personal? So I would take out the words 'idiot' and 'drunk'. Maybe change the 'dumb' and 'stupid' but I would certainly emphasize that Bush lies and lies, and world leaders mock his abilities.
The lesson: besieged Americans want to be led by ass-kicking meanies, not mild-mannered milquetoast moderates.Oh, that feels good!
Democratic leaders ought to select their nominee in a smoke-filled room, call off the expensive and divisive primary process and order all other comers to stand down. Forget the union rallies, the badges and the buttons--whoever wins the nomination should invest every dime he can raise on the cruelest TV attack ads this country has ever seen.
Go after Bush's ultimate Achilles' heel: run countless loops of the inarticulate Resident's clashes with the English language. "Too dumb to talk," a sinister voiceover reads. "Too stupid to trust." Use time-proven Republican methods, like name-calling: Extremist. Out of touch. Tax and spender. Hates workers. Racist. Homophobe. Corrupt CEO coddler. Idiot. Drunk. Cut to the post-pretzel-incident photo: "America needs a sober president."
Forget ideas--voters respond to the personal stuff. Dwell on the two years Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. "Brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam," a 30-second spot should intone as the camera pans over names of the fallen on the black wall in Washington. "Rich kid George W. Bush deserted. This coward snorted coke and drove drunk while other kids died." Who doubts that if Gore had played up Bush's DUI arrest, he would have picked up an extra 500 votes in Florida?
Update - On reflection (and reading the first comment) I guess I don't that good about this because some of this is a personal attack. Perhaps a similarly hard-hitting attack that is not personal? So I would take out the words 'idiot' and 'drunk'. Maybe change the 'dumb' and 'stupid' but I would certainly emphasize that Bush lies and lies, and world leaders mock his abilities.
From Scaife's NewsMax?????
Prez Wannabe Graham Eyeing Evidence That Bush Blew 9/11:
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bob Graham is reportedly sitting on damaging evidence that the Bush administration could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks - but he hasn't released the information yet because it's classified.Did Bush piss someone off? Maybe the NRA? OK, maybe not, as the article continues:
"I think Bob Graham has a smoking pistol on the Bush administration," Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford told WABC Radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander late Tuesday.
Crawford explained that Graham's mystery evidence has to do with "their failures, particularly intelligence failures, before 9/11."
If Graham does indeed have evidence implicating the administration in 9/11-related negligence, it would be doubly ironic for the Bush White House, which has gone out of its way not to point fingers at the Clinton administration for its role in leaving America vulnerable to a 9/11-style attack.Or maybe they just can't help themselves, throwing in a lie like that. Or maybe it's just policy over at NewsMax that they can't write an article that doesn't smear Clinton somehow.
What's The Use Of Telling People?
I know I'll be accused again of being a wild-eyed radical who just makes thing up, but the Republicans in the House forced through a bill yesterday allowing organizations to refuse to hire Jews and Muslims and to receive Federal money.
5/08/2003
Clearing Up A Few Things
I want to clear up some things that I've been reading in the media.
Bush did not land the airplane on the carrier. He was a passenger. He was in an airplane that landed.
Bush did not have to wear the pilot's getup. He could have worn a business suit. The flight suit was for the cameras.
Bush did not win the war. The military won the war. Bush started the war. ("Getting us into a war" used to be considered a bad thing to do - a major screwup.)
Back to our regular programming.
Bush did not land the airplane on the carrier. He was a passenger. He was in an airplane that landed.
Bush did not have to wear the pilot's getup. He could have worn a business suit. The flight suit was for the cameras.
Bush did not win the war. The military won the war. Bush started the war. ("Getting us into a war" used to be considered a bad thing to do - a major screwup.)
Back to our regular programming.
Pope vs Bush
Well THIS is certainly an interesting article! Vatican Concerned By Bush's "Christian" Blood Cult has some intersting things to say:
Thanks to Suburban Guerrilla for the link.
Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs, and his constant references to "evil doers," in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations - the anti-Christ. People close to the Pope claim that amid these concerns, the Pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament. Before he became Pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel." The Pope, who grew up facing the evils of Hitler and Stalin, knows evil when he sees it. Although we can all endlessly argue over the Pope's effectiveness in curtailing abuses within his Church, his accomplishments external to Catholicism are impressive.Well I guess he can count out the Catholic vote. On the other hand, if the Wurlitzer can convince the public that war is a good thing, maybe they can convince Catholics to vote for the anti-Christ against the Pope!
According to journalists close to the Vatican, the Pope and his closest advisers are also concerned that the ultimate acts of evil - the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon - were known in advance by senior Bush administration officials. By permitting the attacks to take their course, there is a perception within the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy that a coup d'etat was implemented, one that gave Bush and his leadership near-dictatorial powers to carry out their agenda.
The Pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the Pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the Pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.
Thanks to Suburban Guerrilla for the link.
Intimidation
From Indian Country, Intimidation punditry - A disservice to discourse"
Over the past 10 years, it has been the right wing that has steam-rolled the media. Its organizations, publications and think tanks - particularly Bill Kristol’s "Weekly Standard" group - are wielding significant influence in U.S. foreign policy. Right wing punditry, however, tends to drive its points of view with sledgehammers. It fields a style of verbal attack that is very harsh and insulting of the opposition. Often, the intent now is openly to damage reputations and to seek to destroy the careers of anyone who might dare question the right wing ideology that drives so much of the coverage these days. Public discourse is deteriorating in the process.Thanks to Cursor for the link.
On national channels and especially cable programming, all talk shows have hard-right commentators and while there are many right wing talk shows, there are virtually no moderate or liberal talk shows evident. They are a dying breed, perhaps vanquished with the scuttling of Phil Donahue’s most recent show, which attempted to voice a liberal, and when set against the current climate, a forceless, response.
It is pretty obvious that the liberal or moderate mindset in reporting is in a retreat stampede. Always skittish, like long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs, woe now the reporter who would even dare ask the tough questions, or pursue a line of thinking that would question motivations and even official practices of the conduct of an American war. Woe to the man or woman in public life who dares disagree with the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Ann Coulter, Shawn Hannity or Laura Ingraham, among quite a few others. Woe the wrath of the far right. [emphasis mine - DJ] The intimidation factor has grown fangs in American public life, particularly through the phenomenon of talk radio and yell TV. It is a whole way of being in media. Aggressively going after people who disagree with your idea of what is "American," which in this case, coincides with the point of view of the Republican party. Patriotism becomes label and sword. When investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh dared publish a controversial conflict-of-interest story about Richard Perle, a major pro-war policy figure, Perle labeled journalist Hersh, "a terrorist."
5/07/2003
Maybe It Will Sink In
Wow. This from Brad DeLong:
Update - My mother came up with a valid fourth possibility - mental imbalance. Hypothesis: Bush is mentally imbalanced and paranoid, so even with no evidence of a threat they concluded there was a threat anyway. I say not likely that all the relevant people in the administration and military could be mentally imbalanced in the same way, but logically it is a valid fourth possibility.
Kevin Drum is extremely unhappy about the Iraqi WMD situation. It seems to me that there are three possibilities:These are the options, and this might just sink in with the public at some point. 1) They were completely criminally incompetent. 2) They were worse than incompetent and let terrorists get ALL of those weapons of mass destruction to use against us in the future. 3) They lied in order to get support to invade another country. Let me know if you see any other possibilities here.1. We suffered a truly massive intelligence failure: Iraq had next to no WMD around.It seems to me that the grownups in the Republican Party need to find out--and find out quickly--which of these three possibilities is correct. If (1) is correct, they need to tell us so and need to fix the "intelligence community" and fix it now. If (2) is correct, they need to tell us so and need to fix the NSC and the Pentagon, and fix it now. If (3) is correct, they need to tell us that George W. Bush needs to be impeached and needs to be impeached now.
2. Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon failed to realize what its mission was, and Iraq's WMD are now in the hands of guys who (unlike Saddam Hussein)cannot be deterred--guys who don't like to live in palaces, and don't hope to die in bed--and we are in much bigger trouble than before.
3. President Bush deliberately lied to the Congress about Saddam Hussein in order to get a resolution authorizing the attack on Iraq.
Update - My mother came up with a valid fourth possibility - mental imbalance. Hypothesis: Bush is mentally imbalanced and paranoid, so even with no evidence of a threat they concluded there was a threat anyway. I say not likely that all the relevant people in the administration and military could be mentally imbalanced in the same way, but logically it is a valid fourth possibility.
Cost Of The Bush PR Carrier Stunt
From David J. Sirota, Communications Director, U.S. House Appropriations Committee - Minority:
With President Bush's circus stunt photo-op last week reportedly delaying the return of the U.S.S. Lincoln and its crew by at least a day, Democrats have demanded a formal inquiry into how much the Pentagon and U.S. taxpayers were forced to cough up to sponsor the event. According to our preliminary estimates, one day of aircraft carrier steaming (aka. energy to power the boat at sea) costs roughly $800,000 to $1 million. This does not include the added huge costs of running regular air patrols over the carrier for the extra day, deploying the regular sea-based protection for the boat for the extra day, paying extra costs to keep the crew fed at sea, security for the President, the cost of flying the President out to the boat by jet, etc.I posted the PDF file here. It's certainly worth a look!
Attached you will find a one-page Adobe PDF document produced by the House Appropriations Committee using these newly released figures.
Which Is Worse?
Bush claimed there were tons of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and on his word we invaded the country. But now they can't find any WMD.
Which is worse? That Bush was lying, using WMD as a pretext for war, terrifying the American public to achieve his own personal, political and financial goals? Or that Bush was telling the truth, and there were WMD -- and Bush's invasion was bungled -- not securing the WMDs -- allowing the Iraqis to give them all to terrorists, who will use them against us?
Which one is stronger grounds for impeachment?
Which is worse? That Bush was lying, using WMD as a pretext for war, terrifying the American public to achieve his own personal, political and financial goals? Or that Bush was telling the truth, and there were WMD -- and Bush's invasion was bungled -- not securing the WMDs -- allowing the Iraqis to give them all to terrorists, who will use them against us?
Which one is stronger grounds for impeachment?
5/06/2003
This One Will Make You Just Want To Cry
Over at AlterNet, Why Ecocide Is 'Good News' for the GOP. Scroll down to "A Higher Power":
Update - While researching the right's web of anti-environmental organizations and their funding would be a lifetime career in itself, I came across this group, Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), one more right-wing organization claiming God gave the planet to humans for "stewardship." If you want to see where they're "coming from" check out the organizations they link to. They have a subtle message that translates to the usual right-wing line: environmentalists are socialsts who are trying to destroy capitalism, which is God's law.
Nevertheless, beyond all these more obvious anti-environmental motivations there lies a more deep-seated inspiration. Difficult as it may be to believe, many of the conservatives who have great influence in the Bush administration and now in Congress are governed by a Higher Power.There is so much more in this article, and it rings true because it agrees with much that I have been reading about these right wingnuts in my research. I'm a little shaken up so instead of saying anything about it I'll ask you to go read the whole article. Oh yeah, by the way, some of the wealthier Reconstructionists are buying up some of the voting machine companies. (If blogspot doesn't scroll to the right piece, search for 'CNP' and 'Ahmanson'.)
In his book "The Carbon Wars," Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett tells how he stumbled upon this otherworldly agenda. During the Kyoto climate change negotiations, Leggett candidly asked Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller how opponents of the pact could believe there is no problem with "a world of a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet?" The executive asserted first that scientists get it wrong when they say fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons. The Earth, he said, is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists.
Then Schiller confidently declared, "You know, the more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible." The Book of Daniel, he told Leggett, predicts that increased earthly devastation will mark the "End Time" and return of Christ. Paradoxically, Leggett notes, many fundamentalists see dying coral reefs, melting ice caps and other environmental destruction not as an urgent call to action, but as God's will. In the religious right worldview, the wreck of the Earth can be seen as Good News! [emphasis added - DJ]
Some true believers, interpreting biblical prophecy, are sure they will be saved from the horrific destruction brought by ecosystem collapse. They'll be raptured: rescued from Earth by God, who will then rain down seven ghastly years of misery on unbelieving humanity. Jesus' return will mark the Millennium, when the Lord restores the Earth to its green pristine condition, and the faithful enjoy a thousand years of peace and prosperity.
One powerful fringe group, the Reconstructionists, doesn't speak of the "End Time" at all, Bokaer notes. They put the onus for the Lord's return on their own political activism. Reconstructionists say that Christ will return only when a righteous nation acts to purge unrepentant sinners and applies biblical law to its populace. They want to spread the Gospel in a political context, making the Bible the foundation of U.S. jurisprudence. That includes an end to environmental regulation.
...
Such misinformed viewpoints would be of little import except that, in the 1980s, they began permeating the Republican Party. That's when Republican strategists – eager to broaden the party's narrow base of wealthy corporate supporters – partnered with religious right leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who agreed to politicize their followers and bring them into the GOP, according to Bokaer.
Working through fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches, the Christian Coalition has promoted right-wing Republican candidates by mailing voter guides at election time – 30 million in 1994; another 45 million in 1996; and 70 million in 2000 to support candidate Bush, reports the watchdog group People for the American Way.
Update - While researching the right's web of anti-environmental organizations and their funding would be a lifetime career in itself, I came across this group, Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), one more right-wing organization claiming God gave the planet to humans for "stewardship." If you want to see where they're "coming from" check out the organizations they link to. They have a subtle message that translates to the usual right-wing line: environmentalists are socialsts who are trying to destroy capitalism, which is God's law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)