Tuesday, August 19, 2003
The Cost of Peace.
A new poll in Iowa today shows Dennis Kucinich with zero percent support of the populace. Howard Dean, who has advocated keeping our bloated Pentagon budget as is, and wanted to bomb Iraq after a 90 day waiting period, is first. John Kerry, who supported the Iraq war resolution, and is a Vietnam veteran, is second.
Kucinich wants to bring our troops home, and increase the role of the UN in Iraq. Kucinich was against this war from the beginning. Kucinich wants to create a Department of Peace. He would like to cut the bloated Pentagon budget and use the funds for education for our children and to create a universal health plan.
In this war on Iraq that we initiated, that has escalated to guerrila warfare, we are finding out just how costly the war will be, in terms of money, in terms of lives lost. However, what Dennis Kucinich is finding out, as are all of his supporters who mistakenly thought his message would be loved by the people, is that if war has a high cost, then peace has an even greater cost.
The cost of peace can be measured by the billions the American companies would lose in Iraq if they were unable to go forward with plans to reconstruct what we have destroyed there. The cost of peace would be a loss of profits for all those companies profiting from this war.
The cost of peace would be measured by the highest officials of our country having to admit they were wrong, and accepting responsibility for what they have wrought.
The cost of peace would be measured by millions of Americans admitting they were wrong to so willing follow our leaders into a war that was neither necessary nor advisable.
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to redefine the meaning of "patriotism", that a true patriot is one who questions their government on each and every decision and issue.
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to accept humility as a virtue, and the willingness to drop the superman motif; the bring 'em on mentality as though our skin were impenentrable and our hearts unstoppable.
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to change our belief that "we are the greatest country in the world" to "we are only as great as the effects of our last decision".
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to listen to those who oppose us, and by our willingness to include those who oppose us into our family of humankind.
We are not yet ready for this change of heart. If we were, Dennis Kucinich would be well on his way to becoming our next president.
Kucinich wants to bring our troops home, and increase the role of the UN in Iraq. Kucinich was against this war from the beginning. Kucinich wants to create a Department of Peace. He would like to cut the bloated Pentagon budget and use the funds for education for our children and to create a universal health plan.
In this war on Iraq that we initiated, that has escalated to guerrila warfare, we are finding out just how costly the war will be, in terms of money, in terms of lives lost. However, what Dennis Kucinich is finding out, as are all of his supporters who mistakenly thought his message would be loved by the people, is that if war has a high cost, then peace has an even greater cost.
The cost of peace can be measured by the billions the American companies would lose in Iraq if they were unable to go forward with plans to reconstruct what we have destroyed there. The cost of peace would be a loss of profits for all those companies profiting from this war.
The cost of peace would be measured by the highest officials of our country having to admit they were wrong, and accepting responsibility for what they have wrought.
The cost of peace would be measured by millions of Americans admitting they were wrong to so willing follow our leaders into a war that was neither necessary nor advisable.
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to redefine the meaning of "patriotism", that a true patriot is one who questions their government on each and every decision and issue.
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to accept humility as a virtue, and the willingness to drop the superman motif; the bring 'em on mentality as though our skin were impenentrable and our hearts unstoppable.
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to change our belief that "we are the greatest country in the world" to "we are only as great as the effects of our last decision".
The cost of peace would be measured by our willingness to listen to those who oppose us, and by our willingness to include those who oppose us into our family of humankind.
We are not yet ready for this change of heart. If we were, Dennis Kucinich would be well on his way to becoming our next president.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:58 PM |
Friday, August 15, 2003
After the lights go on...
There is nothing like a crisis to be the great equalizer. Well-heeled or not in New York, you were scrounging for water, transportation, and a place to sleep it out, if possible, before trying again in the morning to leave that "well-managed" disaster of a city.
Nothing like a physical crisis of that nature, blackout, no electricity, sometimes no water, to remind us of our brothers and sisters in Iraq, who have been living under much worse conditions than we could imagine, with no steady supply of electricity since the war began in February of this year, a situation that has worsened since the Americans gained control of the country.
John Lennon wrote a song called Instant Karma, but there is something not completely instant about this karma. A long neglected power grid in the U.S., antiquated and inadequate to handle the demand of electricity in many areas of the U.S., is but one facet of the problem. This karma is instant in this one way: we instantly knew the feeling of millions of Iraqis, faced with rolling blackouts everyday, unsure of the reasons, wandering if the cause is terrorism.
The blackout, a great equalizer. Now we know how it feels to have every aspect of life disrupted, to have such an element of uncertainty so that one doesn't know what tomorrow, or even tonight will bring.
Iraqis, not appearing facetious, have offered their tips for surviving blackouts. They rule the modern world experience for this type of crisis, thanks to our destruction of their infrastructure, neglect in rebuilding, and on-going acts of terrorism against the electrical system.
The question is, will we cynically demand answers here, while neglecting to speak up for our Iraqi bretheren, the people we were to "liberate", (apparently, liberating them from their air-conditioning is the most important "liberation" that has been accomplished. Many have said they'll take back Sadam if it means getting back their AC ). Will we demand real answers for real problems, in our electrical grid, our priorities here, and our priorities in Iraq?
Is it a simple question of putting people before profits? Is the answer less reliance on our archaic energy grid, rather than more? Perhaps one place to start is the history of regulation of our electrical utilities, first begun by Franklin D. Roosevelt to rid the utilities of corruption. Roosevelt's deregulation was undone by, George Bush Sr:
But then came George the First. In 1992, just prior to his departure from the White House, President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye: federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave Democrats.
But Poppy Bush's gift of deregulating of wholesale prices set by the feds only got the power pirates halfway to the plunder of Joe Ratepayer. For the big payday they needed deregulation at the state level. There were only two states, California and Texas, big enough and Republican enough to put the electricity market con into operation.
Sigh.
Nothing like a physical crisis of that nature, blackout, no electricity, sometimes no water, to remind us of our brothers and sisters in Iraq, who have been living under much worse conditions than we could imagine, with no steady supply of electricity since the war began in February of this year, a situation that has worsened since the Americans gained control of the country.
John Lennon wrote a song called Instant Karma, but there is something not completely instant about this karma. A long neglected power grid in the U.S., antiquated and inadequate to handle the demand of electricity in many areas of the U.S., is but one facet of the problem. This karma is instant in this one way: we instantly knew the feeling of millions of Iraqis, faced with rolling blackouts everyday, unsure of the reasons, wandering if the cause is terrorism.
The blackout, a great equalizer. Now we know how it feels to have every aspect of life disrupted, to have such an element of uncertainty so that one doesn't know what tomorrow, or even tonight will bring.
Iraqis, not appearing facetious, have offered their tips for surviving blackouts. They rule the modern world experience for this type of crisis, thanks to our destruction of their infrastructure, neglect in rebuilding, and on-going acts of terrorism against the electrical system.
The question is, will we cynically demand answers here, while neglecting to speak up for our Iraqi bretheren, the people we were to "liberate", (apparently, liberating them from their air-conditioning is the most important "liberation" that has been accomplished. Many have said they'll take back Sadam if it means getting back their AC ). Will we demand real answers for real problems, in our electrical grid, our priorities here, and our priorities in Iraq?
Is it a simple question of putting people before profits? Is the answer less reliance on our archaic energy grid, rather than more? Perhaps one place to start is the history of regulation of our electrical utilities, first begun by Franklin D. Roosevelt to rid the utilities of corruption. Roosevelt's deregulation was undone by, George Bush Sr:
But then came George the First. In 1992, just prior to his departure from the White House, President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye: federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave Democrats.
But Poppy Bush's gift of deregulating of wholesale prices set by the feds only got the power pirates halfway to the plunder of Joe Ratepayer. For the big payday they needed deregulation at the state level. There were only two states, California and Texas, big enough and Republican enough to put the electricity market con into operation.
Sigh.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:19 PM |
The Northeast Swelters; Iraq Swelters.
Is anyone noticing the irony, unpleasant though it is, of blackouts in the Northeast of the U.S. (and Canada), and blackouts, on a daily basis, in Iraq?
In this country, the "regulators" of energy apparently aren't willing to confront the issue of antiquated transmission capacity, because it would mean an increase in rates. As a direct result of de-regulation, "old utilities" sold off their plants but retained control of transmission lines. These utilities do not have the incentive to invest in new transmission capacity, because transmission charges stay high if capacity is low. New energy companies who bought up power plants don't want the excess capacity that would come with new transmission lines; this would affect profits.
Who get's screwed? You the consumer, not to mention drastically inconvenienced. From the New York Times today:
The problem of preventing such power failures has been that, for the most part, no one has an incentive to invest billions of dollars in new wires, new towers and new transformers. The old utilities have sold off their power plants but still hold a highly regulated monopoly on the network of lines, and they would only invest in new transmission if state regulators would guarantee them rate increases to pay for it.
That is the last thing the regulators, who deregulated much of the industry in hopes of lowering rates, would be willing to do. The entrepreneurial power companies that have bought up power plants have decided against building new transmission lines that would compete with existing ones, possibly driving down transmission charges, and would, at most times, be nothing more than "excess capacity."
Does this blackout scenario remind you of anything? Any country maybe? Any country in the Middle East perhaps? Thomas Friedman's column on August 13 underscored our apparent unwillingness and inability to deal with the lack of electricity in Iraq. This article could have been a prep for this country today. Our electricity problems have a familiar ring to those in Iraq, although the causes are different, but the underlying theme is the same: a country's unwillingness to confront the issue of a substandard infrastructure to deliver the electricity, because it might impede on profits. From Friedman:
Second, America's real enemies in Iraq are exacerbating the situation by cutting electricity lines, which the U.S. does not have enough troops to protect, so many Iraqis today have less electricity (read: air-conditioning) than they had a month ago. The electricity cuts are disrupting oil production and refining, which leads to gasoline lines, soaring prices, more unemployment and more looting.
If we made electricity our priority in Iraq, we could win peace faster than more guns and more troops. Those fighting us in Iraq know this, and they are doing what they can to slow us down, to sabatoge transmission lines.
We simply don't have the numbers there, to both fight terrorism and rebuild and protect Iraq's electric infrastructure. We refuse to make this a project with the UN, that of rebuilding Iraq.
Here at home, the regulators don't want to deal with the issue of highter rates for an improved delivery system for electricity. The government has done nothing to mandate that our electric needs be met. Maybe the people will, now that it has directly affected them...maybe.
We as a people, as a nation, have a habit of burying our heads in the sand when it comes to difficult issues. The issue of antiquated transmission lines is buried along with our heads. The issue of our lack of preparadeness in Iraq to make the peace, and restore electricity, buried in the sand along with our heads. The issue of profits before the needs of the people, millions and millions going to Halliburton and Bechtel to "rebuild" Iraq, while the people there suffer in 120 degree heat, with no electricity, this issue, buried in the hot desert sand along with our heads.
The issue of incentive to keep transmission lines antiquated, to keep up the cost of transmission, means more profits at the expense of the needs of the people.
Take heart, residents of New York, New Jersey, Cleveland, Pennsylvania, Detroit, Toronto: you are not alone. You have your brothers and sisters in Iraq, including the troops there, to swelter along with you.
In this country, the "regulators" of energy apparently aren't willing to confront the issue of antiquated transmission capacity, because it would mean an increase in rates. As a direct result of de-regulation, "old utilities" sold off their plants but retained control of transmission lines. These utilities do not have the incentive to invest in new transmission capacity, because transmission charges stay high if capacity is low. New energy companies who bought up power plants don't want the excess capacity that would come with new transmission lines; this would affect profits.
Who get's screwed? You the consumer, not to mention drastically inconvenienced. From the New York Times today:
The problem of preventing such power failures has been that, for the most part, no one has an incentive to invest billions of dollars in new wires, new towers and new transformers. The old utilities have sold off their power plants but still hold a highly regulated monopoly on the network of lines, and they would only invest in new transmission if state regulators would guarantee them rate increases to pay for it.
That is the last thing the regulators, who deregulated much of the industry in hopes of lowering rates, would be willing to do. The entrepreneurial power companies that have bought up power plants have decided against building new transmission lines that would compete with existing ones, possibly driving down transmission charges, and would, at most times, be nothing more than "excess capacity."
Does this blackout scenario remind you of anything? Any country maybe? Any country in the Middle East perhaps? Thomas Friedman's column on August 13 underscored our apparent unwillingness and inability to deal with the lack of electricity in Iraq. This article could have been a prep for this country today. Our electricity problems have a familiar ring to those in Iraq, although the causes are different, but the underlying theme is the same: a country's unwillingness to confront the issue of a substandard infrastructure to deliver the electricity, because it might impede on profits. From Friedman:
Second, America's real enemies in Iraq are exacerbating the situation by cutting electricity lines, which the U.S. does not have enough troops to protect, so many Iraqis today have less electricity (read: air-conditioning) than they had a month ago. The electricity cuts are disrupting oil production and refining, which leads to gasoline lines, soaring prices, more unemployment and more looting.
If we made electricity our priority in Iraq, we could win peace faster than more guns and more troops. Those fighting us in Iraq know this, and they are doing what they can to slow us down, to sabatoge transmission lines.
We simply don't have the numbers there, to both fight terrorism and rebuild and protect Iraq's electric infrastructure. We refuse to make this a project with the UN, that of rebuilding Iraq.
Here at home, the regulators don't want to deal with the issue of highter rates for an improved delivery system for electricity. The government has done nothing to mandate that our electric needs be met. Maybe the people will, now that it has directly affected them...maybe.
We as a people, as a nation, have a habit of burying our heads in the sand when it comes to difficult issues. The issue of antiquated transmission lines is buried along with our heads. The issue of our lack of preparadeness in Iraq to make the peace, and restore electricity, buried in the sand along with our heads. The issue of profits before the needs of the people, millions and millions going to Halliburton and Bechtel to "rebuild" Iraq, while the people there suffer in 120 degree heat, with no electricity, this issue, buried in the hot desert sand along with our heads.
The issue of incentive to keep transmission lines antiquated, to keep up the cost of transmission, means more profits at the expense of the needs of the people.
Take heart, residents of New York, New Jersey, Cleveland, Pennsylvania, Detroit, Toronto: you are not alone. You have your brothers and sisters in Iraq, including the troops there, to swelter along with you.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:46 AM |
What if?
A student in New York City, fresh out of high school, takes issue with the democratic party's taking for granted of the youth vote, and the trashing of our planet:
Published on Thursday, August 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Young People Are Speaking -- Is Anyone Listening?
by Michael Gould-Wartofsky
But to the Democratic pols who are wondering why we aren't Party animals, many of us would say: Why should we care about you if you've never shown you care about us? This impression--and with it, the desert landscape of American politics--will only shift when these people start to listen to what we're already saying...
...What if we reversed the slew of attempts to impose policies on young people that just don't work? Abstinence-only courses instead of sex education and access to reproductive health resources; high-stakes testing that holds kids back a year for filling in a couple of bubbles incorrectly; "security measures" that criminalize students and violate their civil rights in and around their own schools. If a candidate vowed to help lead America to treat its youth with dignity, for a change, its youth would respond, for a change.
And what if a commitment were made to bring foreign and environmental policy in line with the desires of those in this country who will be most affected by them, who will have to live (or die) with their lasting consequences? Surveys showed a clear majority of young people opposed the war-maybe because it's our friends and families whose blood greases the machine of empire-building, our future and our freedom left in the dust it kicks up. We'd also like to know we'll make it to the age of the politicians. What if they promised to base policy on international cooperation instead of multinational corporations? Insurance of global standards of living and working, starting here at home? Policies for the survival of our earth itself, like renewable energy? The energy of the young could be renewed immediately.
Published on Thursday, August 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Young People Are Speaking -- Is Anyone Listening?
by Michael Gould-Wartofsky
But to the Democratic pols who are wondering why we aren't Party animals, many of us would say: Why should we care about you if you've never shown you care about us? This impression--and with it, the desert landscape of American politics--will only shift when these people start to listen to what we're already saying...
...What if we reversed the slew of attempts to impose policies on young people that just don't work? Abstinence-only courses instead of sex education and access to reproductive health resources; high-stakes testing that holds kids back a year for filling in a couple of bubbles incorrectly; "security measures" that criminalize students and violate their civil rights in and around their own schools. If a candidate vowed to help lead America to treat its youth with dignity, for a change, its youth would respond, for a change.
And what if a commitment were made to bring foreign and environmental policy in line with the desires of those in this country who will be most affected by them, who will have to live (or die) with their lasting consequences? Surveys showed a clear majority of young people opposed the war-maybe because it's our friends and families whose blood greases the machine of empire-building, our future and our freedom left in the dust it kicks up. We'd also like to know we'll make it to the age of the politicians. What if they promised to base policy on international cooperation instead of multinational corporations? Insurance of global standards of living and working, starting here at home? Policies for the survival of our earth itself, like renewable energy? The energy of the young could be renewed immediately.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:07 AM |
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Iraq is the new frontier of jihad-Mullah Mustafa Kreker
Last night I watched a group of parents and loved ones of American soldiers in Iraq, an advocacy group called Bring Them Home Now, talk about their fears and demand that their loved ones be returned from Iraq. Some had already lost sons and daughters in Iraq. Today I read about the growth of terrorism in Iraq:
Last Friday, a day after a bomb ripped apart the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad, killing 17 people, this is what he said: "We have a substantial number of Ansar terrorists around here."
He was referring to Ansar al Islam, a small guerrilla group that once had a base in the mountains of the Kurdish region of northeastern Iraq...
In the weeks leading up to the war on Iraq, the Bush administration, desperate to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism, cited Ansar as his conduit to Al Qaeda.
Ansar, in fact, had been waging a brutal war since 2001 against the secular Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The group's leader, Mullah Mustafa Kreker, awaiting refugee status in Norway, scoffed at the alleged links to Al Qaeda...
...MacFarquhar also drew the specter of Iraq as the new Afghanistan and cited a statement by Mullah Krekar last Sunday from Norway to a Lebanese satellite TV station.
Sounding like an Osama bin Laden wannabe, Krekar said that American-occupied Iraq is the new frontier of jihad against America, just as the Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was for the earlier generation of Mujahideen (who were supported by the CIA).
Last Friday, a day after a bomb ripped apart the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad, killing 17 people, this is what he said: "We have a substantial number of Ansar terrorists around here."
He was referring to Ansar al Islam, a small guerrilla group that once had a base in the mountains of the Kurdish region of northeastern Iraq...
In the weeks leading up to the war on Iraq, the Bush administration, desperate to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism, cited Ansar as his conduit to Al Qaeda.
Ansar, in fact, had been waging a brutal war since 2001 against the secular Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The group's leader, Mullah Mustafa Kreker, awaiting refugee status in Norway, scoffed at the alleged links to Al Qaeda...
...MacFarquhar also drew the specter of Iraq as the new Afghanistan and cited a statement by Mullah Krekar last Sunday from Norway to a Lebanese satellite TV station.
Sounding like an Osama bin Laden wannabe, Krekar said that American-occupied Iraq is the new frontier of jihad against America, just as the Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was for the earlier generation of Mujahideen (who were supported by the CIA).
# posted by scorpiorising : 3:57 PM |
This is why I'm supporting Arianna Huffington for Governor of California.
Arianna Huffington gives us the lowdown on the huge, corporate dodgers, avoiding taxes at ever greater, and expensive numbers, and what this is doing to states' programs:
Corporate tax shelters robbed states of $12.4 billion in desperately needed revenues in 2001, a figure representing more than a third of the money corporations rightfully owed, according to a study released last week by the Multistate Tax Commission, a nonpartisan coalition of state taxing authorities. Companies sheltering their assets overseas are draining an additional $70 billion a year from the federal treasury -- funds that often make their way back to states through programs such as Head Start and AmeriCorps.../em>
...Take California: The Golden State lost an estimated $1.34 billion in corporate tax revenue because of tax shelters, according to the commission. That might not seem like that much to a state facing an elephantine $38 billion budget shortfall, but it means specific cuts to specific programs that affect hundreds of thousands of people...
...In Florida, which lost $554 million to tax shelters in 2001, just $7.7 million would have saved a program that provided glasses and hearing aids for low-income people. In Kentucky, which lost $150 million to tax shelters, $2.6 million would have allowed Gov. Paul Patton to leave behind bars the 883 prison inmates he released early in a desperate effort to balance the state's budget. I suspect that the 25-year-old woman who was raped by one of these freed inmates three days after his release would have considered that $2.6 million well spent.
And the list goes on of vital programs and services cut or eliminated that could have been saved had corporate America paid what it owed.
Corporate tax shelters robbed states of $12.4 billion in desperately needed revenues in 2001, a figure representing more than a third of the money corporations rightfully owed, according to a study released last week by the Multistate Tax Commission, a nonpartisan coalition of state taxing authorities. Companies sheltering their assets overseas are draining an additional $70 billion a year from the federal treasury -- funds that often make their way back to states through programs such as Head Start and AmeriCorps.../em>
...Take California: The Golden State lost an estimated $1.34 billion in corporate tax revenue because of tax shelters, according to the commission. That might not seem like that much to a state facing an elephantine $38 billion budget shortfall, but it means specific cuts to specific programs that affect hundreds of thousands of people...
...In Florida, which lost $554 million to tax shelters in 2001, just $7.7 million would have saved a program that provided glasses and hearing aids for low-income people. In Kentucky, which lost $150 million to tax shelters, $2.6 million would have allowed Gov. Paul Patton to leave behind bars the 883 prison inmates he released early in a desperate effort to balance the state's budget. I suspect that the 25-year-old woman who was raped by one of these freed inmates three days after his release would have considered that $2.6 million well spent.
And the list goes on of vital programs and services cut or eliminated that could have been saved had corporate America paid what it owed.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:53 PM |
Niagara power grid overloaded, probaby causing the blackout.
CNN just announced live that a Niagara power grid probably overloaded, causing the huge blackouts. No confirmation of any sort of fire at the Con Edison power plant.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:52 PM |
August economic fact sheet.
From Tompaine.com, job and unemployment figures for August, 2003:
Joint Economic Committee Democrats
August 2003 Fact Sheet
With President Bush gathering his key economic advisers on August 13th for a summit on the economy, it is sobering to see what has happened to various economic indicators since last year's Waco summit:
The unemployment rate has risen 0.4 percentage points to 6.2 percent, for an increase of 2.1 percentage points since President Bush took office.
348,000 private sector payroll jobs have been lost, for a total loss of 3.2 million jobs since President Bush took office.
621,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, for a total loss of 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office.
429,000 workers have joined the ranks of the long-term unemployed, for a total increase in the long-term unemployed of 1.3 million since President Bush took office.
Over 2.3 million workers have exhausted all of their Unemployment Insurance benefits.
1.8 million workers have lost their jobs due to mass layoffs.
Consumer confidence has sunk 18.9 percent, for a total decline of 34 percent since President Bush took office.
The 2003-2007 federal budget deficit projections have soared $1.7 trillion, for a total increase of $3.9 trillion since President Bush took office.
The Federal Reserve has cut rates twice to stimulate the flagging economy, for a total of 12 rate cuts since President Bush took office.
Clearly, President Bush needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with better policies for creating jobs and growth, and for restoring fiscal responsibility.
To see a copy of this report go to: http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/reports.htm
Joint Economic Committee Democrats
August 2003 Fact Sheet
With President Bush gathering his key economic advisers on August 13th for a summit on the economy, it is sobering to see what has happened to various economic indicators since last year's Waco summit:
The unemployment rate has risen 0.4 percentage points to 6.2 percent, for an increase of 2.1 percentage points since President Bush took office.
348,000 private sector payroll jobs have been lost, for a total loss of 3.2 million jobs since President Bush took office.
621,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, for a total loss of 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office.
429,000 workers have joined the ranks of the long-term unemployed, for a total increase in the long-term unemployed of 1.3 million since President Bush took office.
Over 2.3 million workers have exhausted all of their Unemployment Insurance benefits.
1.8 million workers have lost their jobs due to mass layoffs.
Consumer confidence has sunk 18.9 percent, for a total decline of 34 percent since President Bush took office.
The 2003-2007 federal budget deficit projections have soared $1.7 trillion, for a total increase of $3.9 trillion since President Bush took office.
The Federal Reserve has cut rates twice to stimulate the flagging economy, for a total of 12 rate cuts since President Bush took office.
Clearly, President Bush needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with better policies for creating jobs and growth, and for restoring fiscal responsibility.
To see a copy of this report go to: http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/reports.htm
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:49 PM |
What is going on with Con Edison in New York City?
CNN just reported a fire at the Con Edison energy plant in New York City. Haven't heard confirmation of that anywhere else. I am praying it is not a result of terrorists.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:40 PM |
Sometimes events happen...
Sometimes events happen in which it seems everything you do is futile...Blackouts, in Detroit, Canada and New York...widespread...Are they the work of terrorists?...I hope I am wrong.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:33 PM |
On Why Gray Davis and the Mess in California
I've been searching the internet hight and low for the reasons people in California don't seem to like Gray Davis very much. I finally found, in one of my regular haunting grounds, Tompaine.com, an article that seems clear-minded and fair in addressing Davis' and California's nightmare. Written by Harvey Rosenfeld, a California political/issue veteran, and first appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle, on July 25, 2003:
To fight his recall, Gov. Gray Davis seems to be repeating the very mistakes that got him into this predicament in the first place.
Davis' public support began to evaporate two years ago, when he spent more energy raising money for his re-election than on solving the energy deregulation debacle and the subsequent economic disaster. His stature as a leader was further undermined by the perception that he wouldn't defy the big business and Wall Street firms behind the energy crisis -- constituencies whose money he would need for a presidential run.
Then, his intervention in the Republican gubernatorial primary last year -- attacking Richard Riordan -- allowed Davis to select a laughably weak opponent, but this cynical political strategy alienated many voters.
Davis apparently hasn't learned from experience. His anti-recall campaign is soliciting money from special interests. He's refusing to take tough actions that might offend his donors. And he's focused on vilifying the political players behind the recall rather than defending his unexpected candidacy. If he keeps this up, he'll be looking for another job. To survive, Davis must stop behaving like a career politician and start acting like a leader. He must offer the voters compelling reasons to keep him on for another two years. Here's what Davis (or else his replacement) must do to win:
Provide a road map for the state's fiscal future. California's current budget shortfall masks an even larger threat: There is no money and no plan to restore the quality of life that once made California the Golden State.
To address this requires first challenging powerful interest groups and their political cronies. Thanks to loopholes in Proposition 13, large commercial property owners don't pay their fair share of the government services -- schools, highways, hospitals, housing -- that they rely on. Cost: at least $3 billion a year. And insurance companies pay no state income tax in California.
Government waste and cronyism sucks out billions more. For example, at least four state agencies deal with health care, spending for which is poorly coordinated; a 2002 study for the California Health and Human Services Agency concluded that reforms could save California $70 billion over 10 years -- and insure every resident. While the state suffers, friends and relatives of lawmakers are paid up to hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to serve on obscure and often useless state boards and commissions.
Taking on these items -- sacred to some of Davis' constituencies -- would ease the state's budget morass. With the extra revenue the governor could cancel the astounding vehicle license fee increase and even give homeowners a modest break to offset the residential property tax bubble.
Fight political corruption. Sacramento was a cesspool long before Davis took office, but the level of corruption in the Capitol has soared in recent years, to the point where the people who really make the laws are the lobbyists. Example: Los Angeles-based Mercury Insurance Company is sponsoring legislation to authorize surcharges of up to $526 on motorists who are buying auto insurance for the first time or after a lapse in coverage. Proposition 103, approved by voters in 1988, bans such surcharges, but Mercury has ladled over $1.2 million into the campaign coffers of more than 60 lawmakers to grease its passage (plus $220,000 to Davis since 1999). That's why Democrats and Republicans are putting aside principle to ramrod the bill to the governor's desk. Davis can demonstrate his personal integrity and protect motorists' pocketbooks by refusing insurance company donations to his anti-recall campaign ($100,000 so far), and vetoing the bill.
Pioneer a pocketbook issue. Thanks to Enron and electricity deregulation, Californians now pay 40 percent more for electricity than just three years ago, and polls show the public blames Davis. His solution -- a push for refunds from the wholesale energy companies -- is mired in litigation.
But Davis could lower electricity rates immediately if he instructed his appointees on the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to reverse course on ratepayer bailouts of the state's utility companies. PG&E and Southern California Edison sponsored and reaped the rewards of deregulation -- more than $20 billion. When it collapsed, they convinced Davis' PUC to order residential and small business ratepayers to pick up the tab -- an estimated $850 per customer. A federal court has already ruled that the bailouts are illegal. Instead of fighting the decision, Davis should embrace the opportunity to cut utility rates.
Like most aspects of democracy these days, the recall effort directed at Davis is a highly partisan effort orchestrated by a few people. But the process is fair because the voters will have the final word. What they say will depend on what Davis does from this moment on.
To fight his recall, Gov. Gray Davis seems to be repeating the very mistakes that got him into this predicament in the first place.
Davis' public support began to evaporate two years ago, when he spent more energy raising money for his re-election than on solving the energy deregulation debacle and the subsequent economic disaster. His stature as a leader was further undermined by the perception that he wouldn't defy the big business and Wall Street firms behind the energy crisis -- constituencies whose money he would need for a presidential run.
Then, his intervention in the Republican gubernatorial primary last year -- attacking Richard Riordan -- allowed Davis to select a laughably weak opponent, but this cynical political strategy alienated many voters.
Davis apparently hasn't learned from experience. His anti-recall campaign is soliciting money from special interests. He's refusing to take tough actions that might offend his donors. And he's focused on vilifying the political players behind the recall rather than defending his unexpected candidacy. If he keeps this up, he'll be looking for another job. To survive, Davis must stop behaving like a career politician and start acting like a leader. He must offer the voters compelling reasons to keep him on for another two years. Here's what Davis (or else his replacement) must do to win:
Provide a road map for the state's fiscal future. California's current budget shortfall masks an even larger threat: There is no money and no plan to restore the quality of life that once made California the Golden State.
To address this requires first challenging powerful interest groups and their political cronies. Thanks to loopholes in Proposition 13, large commercial property owners don't pay their fair share of the government services -- schools, highways, hospitals, housing -- that they rely on. Cost: at least $3 billion a year. And insurance companies pay no state income tax in California.
Government waste and cronyism sucks out billions more. For example, at least four state agencies deal with health care, spending for which is poorly coordinated; a 2002 study for the California Health and Human Services Agency concluded that reforms could save California $70 billion over 10 years -- and insure every resident. While the state suffers, friends and relatives of lawmakers are paid up to hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to serve on obscure and often useless state boards and commissions.
Taking on these items -- sacred to some of Davis' constituencies -- would ease the state's budget morass. With the extra revenue the governor could cancel the astounding vehicle license fee increase and even give homeowners a modest break to offset the residential property tax bubble.
Fight political corruption. Sacramento was a cesspool long before Davis took office, but the level of corruption in the Capitol has soared in recent years, to the point where the people who really make the laws are the lobbyists. Example: Los Angeles-based Mercury Insurance Company is sponsoring legislation to authorize surcharges of up to $526 on motorists who are buying auto insurance for the first time or after a lapse in coverage. Proposition 103, approved by voters in 1988, bans such surcharges, but Mercury has ladled over $1.2 million into the campaign coffers of more than 60 lawmakers to grease its passage (plus $220,000 to Davis since 1999). That's why Democrats and Republicans are putting aside principle to ramrod the bill to the governor's desk. Davis can demonstrate his personal integrity and protect motorists' pocketbooks by refusing insurance company donations to his anti-recall campaign ($100,000 so far), and vetoing the bill.
Pioneer a pocketbook issue. Thanks to Enron and electricity deregulation, Californians now pay 40 percent more for electricity than just three years ago, and polls show the public blames Davis. His solution -- a push for refunds from the wholesale energy companies -- is mired in litigation.
But Davis could lower electricity rates immediately if he instructed his appointees on the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to reverse course on ratepayer bailouts of the state's utility companies. PG&E and Southern California Edison sponsored and reaped the rewards of deregulation -- more than $20 billion. When it collapsed, they convinced Davis' PUC to order residential and small business ratepayers to pick up the tab -- an estimated $850 per customer. A federal court has already ruled that the bailouts are illegal. Instead of fighting the decision, Davis should embrace the opportunity to cut utility rates.
Like most aspects of democracy these days, the recall effort directed at Davis is a highly partisan effort orchestrated by a few people. But the process is fair because the voters will have the final word. What they say will depend on what Davis does from this moment on.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:32 PM |
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Just say no to Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Karl Rove in the Whitehouse in April of this year. They both said politics was not discussed. Yea right.
Laura Bush's press secretary, Noelia Rodriguez has been meeting with Schwarzenegger for weeks now. Mindy Tucker, "a Bush campaign operative", apparently has extended the "blessing" from the Whitehouse to the recall effort. Darrell Issa, the republican who orchestrated the recall, dropped out of the race, as soon as Schwarzenegger entered the race. This is a Whitehouse orchestrated campaign from the beginning. Don't let a phony Bush posing as "neutral" throw you off. He recently said, "I think Arnold Schwarzenegger would make a great governor," while claiming to be neutral.
It seems, former president Bill Clinton agrees this recall effort is stinky. In an article in the New York Times on August 13, a Clinton unnamed associate said, "There are a lot of people in the party who are connecting the dots: What's occurring is a conscious and well-heeled effort to try to undo traditional democratic processes."
Bush and his legions are smart, in that they continue to underestimate voters in general, and so far, with great success. They underestimated the determination of voters to have their votes counted in Florida in 2000. This success may continue into California, if voters and the press there don't show some initiative to identify the true issues facing California. And it doesn't have anything to do with the personality of Gray Davis, like him or not.
Arianna Huffington recently said that the mistake Davis made was in announcing the additional deficit after his recent re-election. There has been an obvious leadership deficit on the part of Davis. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Davis's problem sounds like it was one of communication, and foresight. Let this be a lesson. Voters, in these uncertain times, want as much directness and honesty from their politicians as they can muster. What if Davis had come out early on and said, "Folks, we're in trouble, and this is what we need to do to manage this trouble." Voters do not want to be taken for fools.
I have to ask myself, am I underestimating Arnold Schwarzenegger, as much as I believe the Whitehouse is underestimating California voters? Will he be a bitch for the republicans, excuse my direct language, or is he going to be his own man? Does he have any ideas, or is he going to run on his personality and good looks?
These are all issues California voters need to think about, along with the price tag of this recall, estimated at $66million. No rest for the weary.
My advice to voters in California is this: if you don't want to be taken for a fool, don't behave like one. Don't just jump on the bandwagon of a matinee idol, who's never had a lick of government experience, possibly has some unpleasant skeletons in his closet, and who may be a pawn for a faltering Bush administration, an administration that has decided that a republican California would be a distinct advantage in the 2004 presidential race.
And remember, this is an administration that justifies the means for the ends. It is doing so in the Texas republican government attack on voting districts in that state. It is doing so in Iraq in a war that is getting harder and harder to justify. It is doing so now in California, helping to orchestrate a recall based on issues that the republicans themselves had a large say in bringing about. We all know now that Enron manipulated energy prices in the California energy "crisis", and the now known marriage between Enron's desire to manipulate and derregulation in California, with Dick Cheney serving as the best man, in then "secret", Whitehouse meeting with Enron.
Californians will best serve themselves, if they are able to distinguish between a dislike of the personality of Gray Davis, and what he has actually accomplished, what battles has he fought. If there is a decision to choose another candidate, then I would hope for Californians that they choose carefully, examining the issues, and how the candidates resond to the issues. Or will this race be another judgement primarily of personality, and well, Arnold is just plain more likable than Gray, nevermind the issues.
Please don't give credit to someone who has not yet earned the credentials to run your government, but has certainly earned the money to run for office. Question Arnold Schwarzenegger, question him often and well. Demand that he provide a platform of his issues, answer to the California press instead of doging it, and debate the other candidates on live TV. Go for broke California, in your demands on the candidates. It's only your future at stake.
Good luck California! All eyes are watching.
Laura Bush's press secretary, Noelia Rodriguez has been meeting with Schwarzenegger for weeks now. Mindy Tucker, "a Bush campaign operative", apparently has extended the "blessing" from the Whitehouse to the recall effort. Darrell Issa, the republican who orchestrated the recall, dropped out of the race, as soon as Schwarzenegger entered the race. This is a Whitehouse orchestrated campaign from the beginning. Don't let a phony Bush posing as "neutral" throw you off. He recently said, "I think Arnold Schwarzenegger would make a great governor," while claiming to be neutral.
It seems, former president Bill Clinton agrees this recall effort is stinky. In an article in the New York Times on August 13, a Clinton unnamed associate said, "There are a lot of people in the party who are connecting the dots: What's occurring is a conscious and well-heeled effort to try to undo traditional democratic processes."
Bush and his legions are smart, in that they continue to underestimate voters in general, and so far, with great success. They underestimated the determination of voters to have their votes counted in Florida in 2000. This success may continue into California, if voters and the press there don't show some initiative to identify the true issues facing California. And it doesn't have anything to do with the personality of Gray Davis, like him or not.
Arianna Huffington recently said that the mistake Davis made was in announcing the additional deficit after his recent re-election. There has been an obvious leadership deficit on the part of Davis. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Davis's problem sounds like it was one of communication, and foresight. Let this be a lesson. Voters, in these uncertain times, want as much directness and honesty from their politicians as they can muster. What if Davis had come out early on and said, "Folks, we're in trouble, and this is what we need to do to manage this trouble." Voters do not want to be taken for fools.
I have to ask myself, am I underestimating Arnold Schwarzenegger, as much as I believe the Whitehouse is underestimating California voters? Will he be a bitch for the republicans, excuse my direct language, or is he going to be his own man? Does he have any ideas, or is he going to run on his personality and good looks?
These are all issues California voters need to think about, along with the price tag of this recall, estimated at $66million. No rest for the weary.
My advice to voters in California is this: if you don't want to be taken for a fool, don't behave like one. Don't just jump on the bandwagon of a matinee idol, who's never had a lick of government experience, possibly has some unpleasant skeletons in his closet, and who may be a pawn for a faltering Bush administration, an administration that has decided that a republican California would be a distinct advantage in the 2004 presidential race.
And remember, this is an administration that justifies the means for the ends. It is doing so in the Texas republican government attack on voting districts in that state. It is doing so in Iraq in a war that is getting harder and harder to justify. It is doing so now in California, helping to orchestrate a recall based on issues that the republicans themselves had a large say in bringing about. We all know now that Enron manipulated energy prices in the California energy "crisis", and the now known marriage between Enron's desire to manipulate and derregulation in California, with Dick Cheney serving as the best man, in then "secret", Whitehouse meeting with Enron.
Californians will best serve themselves, if they are able to distinguish between a dislike of the personality of Gray Davis, and what he has actually accomplished, what battles has he fought. If there is a decision to choose another candidate, then I would hope for Californians that they choose carefully, examining the issues, and how the candidates resond to the issues. Or will this race be another judgement primarily of personality, and well, Arnold is just plain more likable than Gray, nevermind the issues.
Please don't give credit to someone who has not yet earned the credentials to run your government, but has certainly earned the money to run for office. Question Arnold Schwarzenegger, question him often and well. Demand that he provide a platform of his issues, answer to the California press instead of doging it, and debate the other candidates on live TV. Go for broke California, in your demands on the candidates. It's only your future at stake.
Good luck California! All eyes are watching.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:58 AM |
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Human Shields fined $10,000 for their actions in Iraq.
Apparently, it costs to spread a little peace in the world. There are reports now that several human shields have been fined $10,000 for going to Iraq as a human shield. Apparently, they violated the sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf war.
SARASOTA: A woman who went to Iraq to serve as a "human shield" in a futile attempt to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq is facing thousands of dollars in fines, which she is refusing to pay.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury said in a March letter to Faith Fippinger that she broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border before the war. Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."
Apparently, these are much more serious violations than those of Halliburton under the tutelage of Dick Cheney:
Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, and it's KBR subsidiary did business with some of the world's most notorious governments and dictators - in countries such as Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. The company has routinely skirted U.S. sanctions placed on these countries and lobbied the U.S. government to lift sanctions so it could set up new partnerships and create new business opportunities in these countries.
Nuff said.
SARASOTA: A woman who went to Iraq to serve as a "human shield" in a futile attempt to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq is facing thousands of dollars in fines, which she is refusing to pay.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury said in a March letter to Faith Fippinger that she broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border before the war. Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."
Apparently, these are much more serious violations than those of Halliburton under the tutelage of Dick Cheney:
Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, and it's KBR subsidiary did business with some of the world's most notorious governments and dictators - in countries such as Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. The company has routinely skirted U.S. sanctions placed on these countries and lobbied the U.S. government to lift sanctions so it could set up new partnerships and create new business opportunities in these countries.
Nuff said.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:41 PM |
"There is so much more...do you know this? You need to know this"
Mark Morford, columnist for the SFgate.com, knows his place in the universe, and George Bush's. From Friday, August 1:
You cannot reach me, Dubya.
Go ahead, ya smirkin' Texas lug, stumble around all scrunched and blank eyed and pseudo-manly, shove this country into a bloody unwinnable war and lie about all the reasons why, gouge the economy and ruin the schools and embarrass the nation every single day as you mangle grammar and meaning and truth. It doesn't really matter.
Go ahead, toss those useless $400 rebate checks to the depressed and jobless populace as some sort of bogus humanitarian gesture as you quietly force an increase in their property taxes to pay for your record-breaking deficit brought on by the tax cut no one wants. Ha. You are so cute.
There is so much more going on than you know. There is so much deeper understanding and wider knowledge and higher winking and you can't touch any of it. Do you know this? You need to know this.
You cannot reach me, Dubya.
Go ahead, ya smirkin' Texas lug, stumble around all scrunched and blank eyed and pseudo-manly, shove this country into a bloody unwinnable war and lie about all the reasons why, gouge the economy and ruin the schools and embarrass the nation every single day as you mangle grammar and meaning and truth. It doesn't really matter.
Go ahead, toss those useless $400 rebate checks to the depressed and jobless populace as some sort of bogus humanitarian gesture as you quietly force an increase in their property taxes to pay for your record-breaking deficit brought on by the tax cut no one wants. Ha. You are so cute.
There is so much more going on than you know. There is so much deeper understanding and wider knowledge and higher winking and you can't touch any of it. Do you know this? You need to know this.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:05 PM |
Values.
If Americans were truly interested in a discussion of values, they would begin with our war on the Iraqi people. This son of a Vietnam Veteran describes how his father was shunned when he returned from the war, and wonders at the treatment of our current crop of soldiers. And...he discusses values:
The first of August saw a very interesting article published in The Washington Post. The title was, "U.S. Shifts Rhetoric On its Goals in Iraq." The story quotes an unnamed administration source -- I will bet you all the money in my wallet that this "source" was a man named Richard Perle -- who outlined the newest reasons for our war over there. "That goal is to see the spread of our values," said this aide, "and to understand that our values and our security are inextricably linked."
Our values. That's an interesting concept coming from a member of this administration. We make much of the greatness and high moral standing of the United States of America, and there is much to be proud of. The advertising, however, has lately failed completely to match up with the product.
Is it part of our value system to remain on a permanent war footing since World War II, shunting money desperately needed for human services and education into a military machine whose very size and expense demands the fighting of wars to justify its existence?
Is it part of our value system to lie to the American people, to lie deeply and broadly and with no shame at all, about why we fight in Iraq?
Is it part of our value system to sacrifice nearly 300 American soldiers on the altar of those lies, to sacrifice thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq on the altar of those lies?
Is it part of our value system to use the horror of 9/11 to terrify the American people into an unnecessary war, into the ruination of their civil rights, into the annihilation of the Constitution?
Is it part of our value system to use that terrible day against those American people who felt most personally the awful blow of that attack?
Is striking first part of our value system?
Is living in fear part of our value system?
It is not part of my value system. It never will be.
The first of August saw a very interesting article published in The Washington Post. The title was, "U.S. Shifts Rhetoric On its Goals in Iraq." The story quotes an unnamed administration source -- I will bet you all the money in my wallet that this "source" was a man named Richard Perle -- who outlined the newest reasons for our war over there. "That goal is to see the spread of our values," said this aide, "and to understand that our values and our security are inextricably linked."
Our values. That's an interesting concept coming from a member of this administration. We make much of the greatness and high moral standing of the United States of America, and there is much to be proud of. The advertising, however, has lately failed completely to match up with the product.
Is it part of our value system to remain on a permanent war footing since World War II, shunting money desperately needed for human services and education into a military machine whose very size and expense demands the fighting of wars to justify its existence?
Is it part of our value system to lie to the American people, to lie deeply and broadly and with no shame at all, about why we fight in Iraq?
Is it part of our value system to sacrifice nearly 300 American soldiers on the altar of those lies, to sacrifice thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq on the altar of those lies?
Is it part of our value system to use the horror of 9/11 to terrify the American people into an unnecessary war, into the ruination of their civil rights, into the annihilation of the Constitution?
Is it part of our value system to use that terrible day against those American people who felt most personally the awful blow of that attack?
Is striking first part of our value system?
Is living in fear part of our value system?
It is not part of my value system. It never will be.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:22 PM |
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
I'm including a link to an online copy of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. With this quote from his popular document, you'll know why:
That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:03 AM |
Monday, August 11, 2003
The world is not for sale.
Common Dreams.org links to an article about the recent Larzac Anti-Globalization Meeting in France. Held annually every August, it is in part organized by Jose Bove, one of the more well-known anti-globalization activists in the world. The meeting was such a success this year, thousands had to be turned away due to a shortage of food and water.
Bove is known for his battle against the McDonald's Corp. in France, and genetically modified food. Unfortunately, he has announced he will no longer represent the movement next year. Let's hope he continues to remain involved on some level.
In my opinion, "free-trade" is the platform of globalization. Regarding the free-trade movement, Dennis Kucinich is one of the few candidates to weigh in on the issue with what one could term, an anti-globalization policy. Here is a quote from Kucinich in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer, in response to a question by Blitzer as to why his campaign has lagged behind Howard Dean's:
KUCINICH: Well, I think we have to, first of all, congratulate him for the success that he's had.
However, he's been out there more than a year ahead of my campaign. And I think that as my campaign begins to develop, we're going to be able to attract some of the people who now, currently, feel that Howard Dean is the only alternative.
I mean, my campaign offers a true progressive alternative on trade. I'm the only candidate willing to come forward and say I'll cancel NAFTA and the WTO. On health care, the only candidate who is willing to say, look, the private sector has failed, the market has failed, we've got to go to universal single-payer health care, Medicare for all.
The candidate who's ready to challenge the bloated Pentagon budget, which, as you may know, Wolf, there's a trillion dollars in accounts they can't reconcile in the Pentagon. I'll save the taxpayers money, cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent. That's $60 billion we can put into education and other programs.
So, as I define the differences, it will be very clear to the American people that I'm offering a true alternative, a progressive alternative. And frankly, it's only that kind of alternative which will motivate people to come to vote not only in Democratic primaries, but to give the American people a real choice versus this administration in November of 2004.
Bove is known for his battle against the McDonald's Corp. in France, and genetically modified food. Unfortunately, he has announced he will no longer represent the movement next year. Let's hope he continues to remain involved on some level.
In my opinion, "free-trade" is the platform of globalization. Regarding the free-trade movement, Dennis Kucinich is one of the few candidates to weigh in on the issue with what one could term, an anti-globalization policy. Here is a quote from Kucinich in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer, in response to a question by Blitzer as to why his campaign has lagged behind Howard Dean's:
KUCINICH: Well, I think we have to, first of all, congratulate him for the success that he's had.
However, he's been out there more than a year ahead of my campaign. And I think that as my campaign begins to develop, we're going to be able to attract some of the people who now, currently, feel that Howard Dean is the only alternative.
I mean, my campaign offers a true progressive alternative on trade. I'm the only candidate willing to come forward and say I'll cancel NAFTA and the WTO. On health care, the only candidate who is willing to say, look, the private sector has failed, the market has failed, we've got to go to universal single-payer health care, Medicare for all.
The candidate who's ready to challenge the bloated Pentagon budget, which, as you may know, Wolf, there's a trillion dollars in accounts they can't reconcile in the Pentagon. I'll save the taxpayers money, cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent. That's $60 billion we can put into education and other programs.
So, as I define the differences, it will be very clear to the American people that I'm offering a true alternative, a progressive alternative. And frankly, it's only that kind of alternative which will motivate people to come to vote not only in Democratic primaries, but to give the American people a real choice versus this administration in November of 2004.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:19 AM |
Saturday, August 09, 2003
CAFTA: Just say no!
Recent anti-CAFTA protesters, in front off Gallier Hall in New Orleans.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:47 PM |
Irangate?
Unenviable Situation links to an article in Newsday of a secret meeting between Pentagon officials and an arms dealer in the Iran-contra scandal. This meeting was unauthorized by the Whitehouse (we hope):
Washington - Pentagon hardliners pressing for regime change in Iran have held secret and unauthorized meetings in Paris with a controversial arms dealer who was a major figure in the Iran-contra scandal, according to administration officials.
The officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith have held "several" meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in U.S. arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.
The administration officials who disclosed the secret meetings to Newsday said the talks with Ghorbanifar were not authorized by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting current sensitive back channel negotiations with the Iranian regime.
"They [the Pentagon officials] were talking to him [Ghorbanifar] about stuff which they weren't officially authorized to do," said a senior administration official. "It was only accidentally that certain parts of our government learned about it."
The official would not identify those "parts" of the government, but a former intelligence official confirmed they are the State Department, the CIA and the White House, itself.
The senior official and another administration source who confirmed that the meetings had taken place said that the ultimate policy objective of Feith and a group of neo-conservatives civilians inside the Pentagon is regime change in Iran.
This second official said, "United States policy officially is not regime change, overtly or covertly," but to engage Iranian officials in dialogue over contentious issues, such as Iran's nuclear weapons program, and to press the regime to extradite al-Qaida operatives.
He said that the immediate objective of the Pentagon hardliners appears to be to "antagonize Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden U.S. policy against them."
He confirmed that Secretary of State Colin Powell complained directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld several days ago about Feith's policy shop conducting missions that countered U.S. policy.
Washington - Pentagon hardliners pressing for regime change in Iran have held secret and unauthorized meetings in Paris with a controversial arms dealer who was a major figure in the Iran-contra scandal, according to administration officials.
The officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith have held "several" meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in U.S. arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.
The administration officials who disclosed the secret meetings to Newsday said the talks with Ghorbanifar were not authorized by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting current sensitive back channel negotiations with the Iranian regime.
"They [the Pentagon officials] were talking to him [Ghorbanifar] about stuff which they weren't officially authorized to do," said a senior administration official. "It was only accidentally that certain parts of our government learned about it."
The official would not identify those "parts" of the government, but a former intelligence official confirmed they are the State Department, the CIA and the White House, itself.
The senior official and another administration source who confirmed that the meetings had taken place said that the ultimate policy objective of Feith and a group of neo-conservatives civilians inside the Pentagon is regime change in Iran.
This second official said, "United States policy officially is not regime change, overtly or covertly," but to engage Iranian officials in dialogue over contentious issues, such as Iran's nuclear weapons program, and to press the regime to extradite al-Qaida operatives.
He said that the immediate objective of the Pentagon hardliners appears to be to "antagonize Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden U.S. policy against them."
He confirmed that Secretary of State Colin Powell complained directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld several days ago about Feith's policy shop conducting missions that countered U.S. policy.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:34 AM |
Everything's for sale, including Iraq.
So the Bush administration believes that privatizing Iraq is the "answer". It looks as though they are headed into another minefield. Privatization means higher prices, and decisions made not for the good of the people, but for the maximization of profits.
Thomas C. Foley, has been appointed by Bush to help "resucitate the private sector" of the Iraqi economy. Translation: privatize.
Foley is a fund raiser for Bush, to the tune of $100,000:
Foley is chairman and founder of the NTC Group, a private equity investment company. He was chairman of Bush's Connecticut campaign finance committee in 2000, after raising more than $100,000 for his college friend.
I suppose $100,000 thou is small change compared to the $46 million he's raised so far.
Now is the time to post a link to an article by Naomi Klein, on the U.S.'s destruction and devastation of Iraq's public sector, just in time for privatization:
Downsizing in Disguise
Why is Paul Bremer Hacking Away So Viciously at Iraq's Public Sector?
by Naomi Klein
The streets of Baghdad are a swamp of crime and uncollected garbage. Battered local businesses are going bankrupt, unable to compete with cheap imports. Unemployment is soaring and thousands of laid-off state workers are protesting in the streets.
In other words, Iraq looks like every other country that has undergone rapid-fire "structural adjustments" prescribed by Washington, from Russia's infamous "shock therapy" in the early 1990s to Argentina's disastrous "surgery without anesthetic." Except that Iraq's "reconstruction" makes those wrenching reforms look like spa treatments.
Paul Bremer, the US-appointed governor of Iraq, has already proved something of a flop in the democracy department in his few weeks there, nixing plans for Iraqis to select their own interim government in favor of his own handpicked team of advisers. But Bremer has proved to have something of a gift when it comes to rolling out the red carpet for US multinationals.
For a few weeks Bremer has been hacking away at Iraq's public sector like former Sunbeam exec "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap in a flak jacket. On May 16 Bremer banned up to 30,000 senior Baath Party officials from government jobs. A week later, he dissolved the army and the information ministry, putting more than 400,000 Iraqis out of work without pensions or re-employment programs.
Of course, if Saddam Hussein's henchmen and propagandists held on to power in Iraq it would be a human rights disaster. "De-Baathification," as the purging of party officials has come to be called, may be the only way to prevent a comeback by Saddam's crew--and the only silver lining of George Bush's illegal war.
But Bremer has gone far beyond purging powerful Baath loyalists and moved into a full-scale assault on the state itself. Doctors who joined the party as children and have no love for Saddam face dismissal, while low-level civil servants with no ties to the party have been fired en masse. Nuha Najeeb, who ran a Baghdad printing house, told Reuters, "I...had nothing to do with Saddam's media, so why am I sacked?"
As the Bush Administration becomes increasingly open about its plans to privatize Iraq's state industries and parts of the government, Bremer's de-Baathification takes on new meaning. Is he working only to get rid of Baath Party members, or is he also working to shrink the public sector as a whole so that hospitals, schools and even the army are primed for privatization by US firms? Just as reconstruction is the guise for privatization, de-Baathification looks a lot like disguised downsizing.
Thomas C. Foley, has been appointed by Bush to help "resucitate the private sector" of the Iraqi economy. Translation: privatize.
Foley is a fund raiser for Bush, to the tune of $100,000:
Foley is chairman and founder of the NTC Group, a private equity investment company. He was chairman of Bush's Connecticut campaign finance committee in 2000, after raising more than $100,000 for his college friend.
I suppose $100,000 thou is small change compared to the $46 million he's raised so far.
Now is the time to post a link to an article by Naomi Klein, on the U.S.'s destruction and devastation of Iraq's public sector, just in time for privatization:
Downsizing in Disguise
Why is Paul Bremer Hacking Away So Viciously at Iraq's Public Sector?
by Naomi Klein
The streets of Baghdad are a swamp of crime and uncollected garbage. Battered local businesses are going bankrupt, unable to compete with cheap imports. Unemployment is soaring and thousands of laid-off state workers are protesting in the streets.
In other words, Iraq looks like every other country that has undergone rapid-fire "structural adjustments" prescribed by Washington, from Russia's infamous "shock therapy" in the early 1990s to Argentina's disastrous "surgery without anesthetic." Except that Iraq's "reconstruction" makes those wrenching reforms look like spa treatments.
Paul Bremer, the US-appointed governor of Iraq, has already proved something of a flop in the democracy department in his few weeks there, nixing plans for Iraqis to select their own interim government in favor of his own handpicked team of advisers. But Bremer has proved to have something of a gift when it comes to rolling out the red carpet for US multinationals.
For a few weeks Bremer has been hacking away at Iraq's public sector like former Sunbeam exec "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap in a flak jacket. On May 16 Bremer banned up to 30,000 senior Baath Party officials from government jobs. A week later, he dissolved the army and the information ministry, putting more than 400,000 Iraqis out of work without pensions or re-employment programs.
Of course, if Saddam Hussein's henchmen and propagandists held on to power in Iraq it would be a human rights disaster. "De-Baathification," as the purging of party officials has come to be called, may be the only way to prevent a comeback by Saddam's crew--and the only silver lining of George Bush's illegal war.
But Bremer has gone far beyond purging powerful Baath loyalists and moved into a full-scale assault on the state itself. Doctors who joined the party as children and have no love for Saddam face dismissal, while low-level civil servants with no ties to the party have been fired en masse. Nuha Najeeb, who ran a Baghdad printing house, told Reuters, "I...had nothing to do with Saddam's media, so why am I sacked?"
As the Bush Administration becomes increasingly open about its plans to privatize Iraq's state industries and parts of the government, Bremer's de-Baathification takes on new meaning. Is he working only to get rid of Baath Party members, or is he also working to shrink the public sector as a whole so that hospitals, schools and even the army are primed for privatization by US firms? Just as reconstruction is the guise for privatization, de-Baathification looks a lot like disguised downsizing.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:18 AM |
Everything's for sale, including Iraq.
They say that financial reports tell the unvarnished truth, I suppose, for the sake of maximizing profits. Here is the Financial Times.com
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:05 AM |
Friday, August 08, 2003
This guy is busier than most.
Go read Busy, Busy, Busy, for a good dose of tragicomedy:
Shorter Condoleezza Rice:
Transforming the Middle East:
We attacked Iraq without provocation in order to transform it into a democracy and so enhance world peace, as countries with elected leaders do not attack other countries without provocation.
Shorter Tom Friedman:
Shaking Up the Neighbors:
Some Arabs just don't appreciate the free self-governing democracy that we are currently in the process of imposing upon them at gunpoint.
Shorter Paul Wolfowitz:
On Meet The Press:
The invasion of Iraq was integral to our war on terrorism because the 5,000 American soldiers protecting Saudi Arabia were a magnet for terrorists, and we've now improved the situation by exposing 150,000 troops to guerilla attacks in Iraq instead.
Shorter Condoleezza Rice:
Transforming the Middle East:
We attacked Iraq without provocation in order to transform it into a democracy and so enhance world peace, as countries with elected leaders do not attack other countries without provocation.
Shorter Tom Friedman:
Shaking Up the Neighbors:
Some Arabs just don't appreciate the free self-governing democracy that we are currently in the process of imposing upon them at gunpoint.
Shorter Paul Wolfowitz:
On Meet The Press:
The invasion of Iraq was integral to our war on terrorism because the 5,000 American soldiers protecting Saudi Arabia were a magnet for terrorists, and we've now improved the situation by exposing 150,000 troops to guerilla attacks in Iraq instead.
# posted by scorpiorising : 12:11 PM |
Fred Barnes and deception.
It was easy, just too easy to discount Mr. Fred Barnes' statement from Brit Hume's Special Repot on Fox news channel...well, you read the email I sent him. I happened to catch that little snibbit of debate, and then atrios wrote about it this morning. I wish I could get rid of the sarcasm, but I can't help it. It stems from carefully controlled anger and rage over the looting of this country, and the looting of Iraq:
Mr. Barnes,
I saw you last night debating on Fox news channel. Juan Williams defended Al Gore's speech alleging intelligence hype and deception by the administration, specifically the ties the administration alleged between Iraq and Al Queda. You stated that President Bush has been saying "the opposite, the opposite".
I'm not sure what planet you are living on, or perhaps it is an alternative universe you are living in, much like, apparently, the home of the myth of the "liberal media" .
For your reference, these quotes and articles as to what Bush really said about the Al Queda and Saddam connection:
From: http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story
On Friday, Bush specifically linked Hussein to the terrorist network. "We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda," Bush said during an election rally in New Hampshire. "A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network, where they could attack America and he'd leave no fingerprints behind. He is a problem."
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2705491.stm
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, US President George W Bush said Iraq had links to terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and might supply weapons of mass destruction to militants.
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel30jan30,0,6143421.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Powell said Wednesday that documenting the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda will be one of the elements of his appearance at the United Nations, touted by the White House as a presentation of the best evidence it has against Iraq that can be shared with the public.
Sincerely,
An "all-ears citizen",
elizabeth
Mr. Barnes,
I saw you last night debating on Fox news channel. Juan Williams defended Al Gore's speech alleging intelligence hype and deception by the administration, specifically the ties the administration alleged between Iraq and Al Queda. You stated that President Bush has been saying "the opposite, the opposite".
I'm not sure what planet you are living on, or perhaps it is an alternative universe you are living in, much like, apparently, the home of the myth of the "liberal media" .
For your reference, these quotes and articles as to what Bush really said about the Al Queda and Saddam connection:
From: http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story
On Friday, Bush specifically linked Hussein to the terrorist network. "We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda," Bush said during an election rally in New Hampshire. "A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network, where they could attack America and he'd leave no fingerprints behind. He is a problem."
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2705491.stm
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, US President George W Bush said Iraq had links to terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and might supply weapons of mass destruction to militants.
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel30jan30,0,6143421.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Powell said Wednesday that documenting the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda will be one of the elements of his appearance at the United Nations, touted by the White House as a presentation of the best evidence it has against Iraq that can be shared with the public.
Sincerely,
An "all-ears citizen",
elizabeth
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:05 AM |
Thursday, August 07, 2003
The DLC is a drag.
Further analysis of the Democratic Leadership Council, and their efforts at self-sabotage, from Tompaine.com:
Frequently offensive, the DLC potshots have recently become perverse. Consider the scene when the DLC gathered in late July in Philadelphia for its annual “conversation.” The big political news is that Bush is sinking rapidly in the polls. With unemployment up and wages down, Americans are losing patience with the Bush tax-cuts-for-the-country-club economic policy. As American soldiers die every day in the chaotic and mismanaged occupation of Iraq, confidence in the president’s foreign policy acumen wanes. And the lies and dodges of the White House are now starting to erode the president’s personal popularity. This president is increasingly vulnerable, the White House knows it, and activists across the country can sense it.
Joining the DLC in Philadelphia were the newly elected and attractive Democratic governors. These rising stars include Bill Richardson from New Mexico, Jennifer Granholm from Michigan, Janet Napolitano from Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas, and host Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania. Here was the perfect opportunity to contrast Bush’s failed leadership, with its catastrophic effects on the states, and the governors’ leadership on bread and butter issues. The governors could connect the dots between the harsh cuts in schools, layoffs of police and firefighters and Bush’s wrong-headed economic policies. The DLC could trumpet his new vulnerability and offer their leaders as exemplars of the policies that make sense for working families.
But instead, it was not Bush, but Democratic activists -- and Howard Dean -- who were in the DLC’s line of fire. The Democrats are “at risk of being taken over by the far left,” whined DLC Chair Sen. Evan Bayh. DLC honcho Al From declared the DLC is fighting for the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party. Like an ideological commissar, he is exercised not about the party’s direction, but about ideological deviations from DLC doctrine.
Frequently offensive, the DLC potshots have recently become perverse. Consider the scene when the DLC gathered in late July in Philadelphia for its annual “conversation.” The big political news is that Bush is sinking rapidly in the polls. With unemployment up and wages down, Americans are losing patience with the Bush tax-cuts-for-the-country-club economic policy. As American soldiers die every day in the chaotic and mismanaged occupation of Iraq, confidence in the president’s foreign policy acumen wanes. And the lies and dodges of the White House are now starting to erode the president’s personal popularity. This president is increasingly vulnerable, the White House knows it, and activists across the country can sense it.
Joining the DLC in Philadelphia were the newly elected and attractive Democratic governors. These rising stars include Bill Richardson from New Mexico, Jennifer Granholm from Michigan, Janet Napolitano from Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas, and host Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania. Here was the perfect opportunity to contrast Bush’s failed leadership, with its catastrophic effects on the states, and the governors’ leadership on bread and butter issues. The governors could connect the dots between the harsh cuts in schools, layoffs of police and firefighters and Bush’s wrong-headed economic policies. The DLC could trumpet his new vulnerability and offer their leaders as exemplars of the policies that make sense for working families.
But instead, it was not Bush, but Democratic activists -- and Howard Dean -- who were in the DLC’s line of fire. The Democrats are “at risk of being taken over by the far left,” whined DLC Chair Sen. Evan Bayh. DLC honcho Al From declared the DLC is fighting for the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party. Like an ideological commissar, he is exercised not about the party’s direction, but about ideological deviations from DLC doctrine.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:36 AM |
Arianna Huffington for governor of California!!!
Arianna Huffington has thrown her hat in the ring for governor of California, and I believe her interview with the editor of Tompaine.com clearly underlies why she deserves the support of every progressive in America.
Make no mistake, despite the circus atmospere of this race, who wins the governorship of California is extremely important to the rest of the nation. California in many respects, sets the political tone for the rest of the country. From Tompaine.com:
Huffington: First of all, John, governing is about setting the right priorities. If you don't or can't set the right priorities, you get to the kind of crisis we're having at the moment, where policies are determined by the highest bidder, where special interests can buy politicians, buy access and buy the policy that they want. So that's number one.
Number two is, governing involves leading. For me, that means using the bully pulpit and engaging the public. If we don't bring the people along, there are just too many influences in the system right now [that want] to preserve the status quo.
Also, the concept of the citizen-politician is central to American democracy. And the idea that experience is the most important thing is really belied by [Gov.] Gray Davis, who has held practically every job you can have in state government, and look at the state of the state. I mean, his slogan [in one campaign] was "experience money can't buy." Well, we found out that wasn't the case.
Make no mistake, despite the circus atmospere of this race, who wins the governorship of California is extremely important to the rest of the nation. California in many respects, sets the political tone for the rest of the country. From Tompaine.com:
Huffington: First of all, John, governing is about setting the right priorities. If you don't or can't set the right priorities, you get to the kind of crisis we're having at the moment, where policies are determined by the highest bidder, where special interests can buy politicians, buy access and buy the policy that they want. So that's number one.
Number two is, governing involves leading. For me, that means using the bully pulpit and engaging the public. If we don't bring the people along, there are just too many influences in the system right now [that want] to preserve the status quo.
Also, the concept of the citizen-politician is central to American democracy. And the idea that experience is the most important thing is really belied by [Gov.] Gray Davis, who has held practically every job you can have in state government, and look at the state of the state. I mean, his slogan [in one campaign] was "experience money can't buy." Well, we found out that wasn't the case.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:20 AM |
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Riverbend, from Mosul, Iraq
I seem to be posting a great deal on parallel universes these days, or would it be more accurate to say, alternative universes. Apparently there is one occupied by Rumsfeld, and one occupied by the people of Iraq. A woman named Riverbend, living in Mosul, sent this post to Where is Raed?:
Things are really bad for females everywhere. Here it's somewhat safer, but not too much. People are boiling over because of the whole Uday/Qusai saga... I mean give me a break- something like 400 troops for 4 guys??? You'd think they'd want them alive with numbers like that! People are infuriated because of the whole commotion- planes flying, Apaches hovering and freaked-out troops shooting right and left (yes, they shot civilians). Then, on top of all that crap, they decide to show the pictures on tv to 'prove to the Iraqi people' the deaths of Uday and Qusai... Pleeeeease... those pictures were obviously Bush's war trophy. And could they have come at a more convenient time for the nitwit??? I think not...
So, things are tense here. They have been since the end of the war. Someone has told troops posted in Mosul that everyone is the enemy- even little kids- so watch out! And they have been doing just that.
I'm so angry and frustrated Salam as everyone seems to be. We've got thousands of angry, ignorant American troops running around with tanks and guns pointed at everyone. What the hell happened? And since you're working with the press, what's up with not giving the number of American casualties?! It's funny how on Al-Jazeera the give the numbers in the following way: 'two wounded and two dead'... half an hour later it's: 'three wounded and one dead'- 'lo and behold! They are being resurrected!!!
Well, I'm telling you now- there have been plenty of casualties in Mosul during the 'gunfight' and after (in one of the wooded areas), but you'll be hearing about those in the following form: Troops Die in Car Accident in North of Iraq as Car Swerves to Avoid Crossing Sheep!
Riverbend
Things are really bad for females everywhere. Here it's somewhat safer, but not too much. People are boiling over because of the whole Uday/Qusai saga... I mean give me a break- something like 400 troops for 4 guys??? You'd think they'd want them alive with numbers like that! People are infuriated because of the whole commotion- planes flying, Apaches hovering and freaked-out troops shooting right and left (yes, they shot civilians). Then, on top of all that crap, they decide to show the pictures on tv to 'prove to the Iraqi people' the deaths of Uday and Qusai... Pleeeeease... those pictures were obviously Bush's war trophy. And could they have come at a more convenient time for the nitwit??? I think not...
So, things are tense here. They have been since the end of the war. Someone has told troops posted in Mosul that everyone is the enemy- even little kids- so watch out! And they have been doing just that.
I'm so angry and frustrated Salam as everyone seems to be. We've got thousands of angry, ignorant American troops running around with tanks and guns pointed at everyone. What the hell happened? And since you're working with the press, what's up with not giving the number of American casualties?! It's funny how on Al-Jazeera the give the numbers in the following way: 'two wounded and two dead'... half an hour later it's: 'three wounded and one dead'- 'lo and behold! They are being resurrected!!!
Well, I'm telling you now- there have been plenty of casualties in Mosul during the 'gunfight' and after (in one of the wooded areas), but you'll be hearing about those in the following form: Troops Die in Car Accident in North of Iraq as Car Swerves to Avoid Crossing Sheep!
Riverbend
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:39 PM |
Talk to the people.
There is one very good way to find out what is really happening in Iraq: talk to the people. Where is Raed has a daily account of life in Iraq, and things there aren't, well, quite what Rumsfeld tells you:
:: Friday, August 01, 2003 ::
I just want to make sure everyone read THIS article in the Washington Post, it freaked me out this morning:
Two hours before the dawn call to prayer, in a village still shrouded in silence, Sabah Kerbul's executioners arrived. His father carried an AK-47 assault rifle, as did his brother. And with barely a word spoken, they led the man accused by the village of working as an informer for the Americans behind a house girded with fig trees, vineyards and orange groves.
shitshitshit. and then you go talk to the US Army guys and they tell you they are fully "plugged in"and know exactly what is going on, Habibi people who keep you "informed" are being executed by their families. what surreal movie this country has become.
I am just a bit freaked out because the people I work with are making me spend the night over in Tikrit, I only hope no one sees me coming into town with the infidel americans again.
you know something has gone really wrong in your country when ou start having discussions with friends on what is the event that will make you decide to leave.
and Anthony Shadid kicks ass
:: salam 10:55 AM [+] ::
:: Friday, August 01, 2003 ::
I just want to make sure everyone read THIS article in the Washington Post, it freaked me out this morning:
Two hours before the dawn call to prayer, in a village still shrouded in silence, Sabah Kerbul's executioners arrived. His father carried an AK-47 assault rifle, as did his brother. And with barely a word spoken, they led the man accused by the village of working as an informer for the Americans behind a house girded with fig trees, vineyards and orange groves.
shitshitshit. and then you go talk to the US Army guys and they tell you they are fully "plugged in"and know exactly what is going on, Habibi people who keep you "informed" are being executed by their families. what surreal movie this country has become.
I am just a bit freaked out because the people I work with are making me spend the night over in Tikrit, I only hope no one sees me coming into town with the infidel americans again.
you know something has gone really wrong in your country when ou start having discussions with friends on what is the event that will make you decide to leave.
and Anthony Shadid kicks ass
:: salam 10:55 AM [+] ::
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:32 PM |
Kucinich on the AFL-CIO forum last night.
Sometimes, I believe I must be living in a parallel universe. Some of the comments on the Daily Kos, pertaining to Kucinich, (in the open thread), focus on the style of his delivery, rather than the substance. I've always believed that substance mattered more than style, at least in my universe.
That said, Kucinich was awesome last night, literally. He awed me in his courage to directly challenge the other candidates by name, on a number of issues, without getting personal.
Kucinich tends to get loud when speaking before large, public groups. One commentator on Daily Kos described him as "rabid". I don't know about him, but I find myself feeling quite rabid these days about the looting and "rape" of our country by the neocons.
I'm going to let Dennis tell you what he believes. Dennis was articulate and thoughtful in a recent townhall meeting in Iowa. Here is a link to that video on C-Span:
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=kucinich+in+iowa&image1.x=16&image1.y=4
Here is the link to the video of the forum last night on C-Span:
http://www.c-span.org/#?Cat=TV&Code=VA&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=
I hope that we all take the time to listen to Kucinich as he takes on many issues, and enjoy.
That said, Kucinich was awesome last night, literally. He awed me in his courage to directly challenge the other candidates by name, on a number of issues, without getting personal.
Kucinich tends to get loud when speaking before large, public groups. One commentator on Daily Kos described him as "rabid". I don't know about him, but I find myself feeling quite rabid these days about the looting and "rape" of our country by the neocons.
I'm going to let Dennis tell you what he believes. Dennis was articulate and thoughtful in a recent townhall meeting in Iowa. Here is a link to that video on C-Span:
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=kucinich+in+iowa&image1.x=16&image1.y=4
Here is the link to the video of the forum last night on C-Span:
http://www.c-span.org/#?Cat=TV&Code=VA&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=
I hope that we all take the time to listen to Kucinich as he takes on many issues, and enjoy.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:47 AM |
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Huh?
Just when I finished the previous post, I hear Chris Matthews of Hardball and guests screeching about Bill Clinton giving advice to the demos as to how to beat Bush, and that he can be beaten in 2004. We lovingly welcome Bill Clinton back into our ranks. Let's just hope he stays there:
CHICAGO -- Former President Clinton rallied the ground troops of the Democratic Party -- organized labor -- with a pep talk to union leaders gathered yesterday to draw up a political strategy they hoped would take back the White House in 2004. Speaking privately to union political directors, Clinton told them President Bush can be beaten next year. What is needed, he said, is the right emphasis on the underperforming economy, unemployment, tax cuts that have benefited the wealthy, and questions on the war in Iraq and the credibility of the administration's case for war.
The AFL-CIO's executive council meeting officially opens today, with union presidents set to gauge whether Democrat Richard A. Gephardt, who received organized labor's endorsement in 1988, when he last ran for president, can muster support for a laborwide endorsement this time. Gephardt and the other eight Democratic hopefuls will participate in a presidential forum in the evening.
Perhaps the dress rehearsal for labor in 2004 is coming in California, where Democratic governor Gray Davis faces an October recall election. Davis, who received big backing from organized labor in his previous two elections, sought labor's help again yesterday in meetings with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and other officials. He was to address the full council, which meets in closed sessions, today.
Davis had an hourlong private meeting with Clinton. Neither man would discuss the substance of their talks.
CHICAGO -- Former President Clinton rallied the ground troops of the Democratic Party -- organized labor -- with a pep talk to union leaders gathered yesterday to draw up a political strategy they hoped would take back the White House in 2004. Speaking privately to union political directors, Clinton told them President Bush can be beaten next year. What is needed, he said, is the right emphasis on the underperforming economy, unemployment, tax cuts that have benefited the wealthy, and questions on the war in Iraq and the credibility of the administration's case for war.
The AFL-CIO's executive council meeting officially opens today, with union presidents set to gauge whether Democrat Richard A. Gephardt, who received organized labor's endorsement in 1988, when he last ran for president, can muster support for a laborwide endorsement this time. Gephardt and the other eight Democratic hopefuls will participate in a presidential forum in the evening.
Perhaps the dress rehearsal for labor in 2004 is coming in California, where Democratic governor Gray Davis faces an October recall election. Davis, who received big backing from organized labor in his previous two elections, sought labor's help again yesterday in meetings with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and other officials. He was to address the full council, which meets in closed sessions, today.
Davis had an hourlong private meeting with Clinton. Neither man would discuss the substance of their talks.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:33 PM |
Will the real Bill Clinton please stand up.
Further thoughts on the loyalties of Bill Clinton. I could see that he would lend much hope and enthusiasm to the thought of Hillary winning the White House in 2008. However, there may not be the 2008 that he dreams of, in quite the way he dreams of it, if Bush wins re-election.
I also have to wonder, though it is still early, why we don't see Clinton encouraging the current crop of democratic candidates?
Why don't we hear Clinton stressing the importance of trust, in terms of the presidency? Well, I guess I might have answered my question on that issue.
Not that Clinton hasn't criticized this administration.
In April, he criticized Bush's foreign policy, in essence, taking on our tendency to snub our nose at our detractors these days.:
Our paradigm now seems to be, something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell," Clinton was quoted as saying in a Tuesday AFP report.
Clinton also went on to declare that "you cannot kill, jail or occupy all of your adversaries, sooner or later you're going to have to make a deal." The report also noted that Clinton had suggested the administration was unable to balance foreign and domestic issues, and that the White House had overreacted to French and German opposition to the war.
Clinton, in July of 2002, criticized Bush for trying to pin the corporate malfeasance issue on his two terms in office. He threw a jab in at Bush's Middle East Policy as well:
Clinton said Republicans on Capitol Hill had impeded his proposals for protecting investors. Referring to Bush, Clinton said, "There was corporate malfeasance both before he took office and after. The difference is I actually tried to do something about it, and their party stopped it."
In April, Bush said that Clinton's failed efforts at peacemaking had resulted in more Palestinian violence. In the interview, Clinton criticized Bush's initial disengagement from the Middle East. "I think it was a mistake to get out for a year," he said. "The important thing is that, right now, that they be involved. I always thought that Secretary [of State Colin L.] Powell wanted to do that."
In February of 2003, Clinton criticizes the tax cuts and our decision to not allow the inspectors in Iraq more time:
Clinton said President Bush "deserves a lot of credit for saying we can't just ignore (Saddam's defiance of United Nations resolutions) forever." But he said the United States should give inspectors "a little more time" to look for weapons of mass destruction if that might persuade France, Germany and Russia to support military action to disarm Iraq...
...Saying he would get political on only one issue, Clinton said the 2001 tax cuts were a bad mistake. He said the latest tax cuts proposed by Bush would compromise America's goals of making this country and the world better.
"We cannot meet these commitments and keep giving tax cuts to people of my income bracket," he said.
In an interview with the Guardian.co.uk, he seems to support Blair and Bush, particularly Blair, in their efforts to gather the international community in support of the war, in an article titled Trust Tony's Judgement:
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.
And I know a good, used car salesman. If I could see the hype in Tony Blair's rhetoric...perhaps Clinton suffers from a case of over-identification with those now in power, as though he were the one still making the decisions.
Here, you wish Bill Clinton had kept his mouth shut. I'm also convinced he's living in a parallel universe of some sort, in which he see events through the rosy glow of his own glasses:
I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.
"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."
What he seems to gloss over, is that we are dealing with intelligence exaggeration, even possibly falsification, throughout the administration's rationals for this war. This is war, for the soul of the country, and Clinton wants to forgive an exaggeration or two, that led to the deaths of thousands of innocents.
What Las Vegas world is he living in?
Then I have to wonder if he isn't withholding harsh criticism of the band of thugs running the White House, in hopes for a Hillary run for the White House in 2008:
Bill Clinton: Not If, but When for Hillary Run
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Sunday, Aug. 18, 2002
Former president Bill Clinton has confirmed NewsMax.com's exclusive reports that his wife is hot on the trail to the White House.
Clinton speaks about his wife's run for the presidency as a matter of "when," not "if," say people who have discussed it with him, according to Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier. And several of her associates said she is eyeing 2008 as the year to run.
And the senator is wasting no time gearing up for a run to take her husband's former job in the White House Fournier writes, revealing that she's been busy trying to play down her image as a flaming liberal, hitting out at President Bush, and going to the aid of fellow Democrats who will be in her debt and obliged to come to her aid when she makes her bid for a White House run in 2004 or 2008.
At the moment it seems to be 2008, if, that is, she honors her pledge to serve out her six-year senatorial term which ends in 2006.
"I have no plans to run for president," she told Fournier with what we assume was a straight face during a telephone interview.
Everything she's doing, however, betrays her claim that she is not running hard for the White House and the chance to be America's first woman president. Fournier listed her actions in this regard:
She's given almost "$600,000 to 73 Democratic candidates across the country through her political action committee (PAC) and has raised even more money by headlining fundraisers.
She lent a helping hand to candidates in key early presidential primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Her PAC has given about $15,000 to New Hampshire candidates in tight races and about $21,000 to those in Iowa
She also attended a fundraiser in February for Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and helped raise $20,000 at a New York fundraiser for New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who is running for the Senate, according to Fournier. Moreover, on Sept. 18 she'll stage a fundraiser at her Washington residence for Julie Thomas, a congressional candidate from Iowa.
She's vigorously defended her husband's largely indefensible record as president in the face of attacks from Republicans, at the same time sharpening her criticism of President Bush.
She wooed the party's moderate wing by giving a keynote speech to the so-called "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council.
She has sided with Republicans or centrist Democrats on bankruptcy, welfare and anti-Hollywood legislation.
"It used to be that Democrats came to Washington hoping to work for Ted Kennedy," Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager told Fournier. "Now they want to earn their stripes with Hillary."
Funny, but Ted Kennedy seems more aware of the relevance of the seriousness of the mess we're in as a result of this war, than Bill Clinton. Clinton appears to greatly underestimate the importance of trust between the president and the rest of the country. It appears Bush can't be believed when it comes to the intelligence used to justify the war. Isn't this important, and not just a minor matter of making a mistake with 16 words?
I also have to wonder, though it is still early, why we don't see Clinton encouraging the current crop of democratic candidates?
Why don't we hear Clinton stressing the importance of trust, in terms of the presidency? Well, I guess I might have answered my question on that issue.
Not that Clinton hasn't criticized this administration.
In April, he criticized Bush's foreign policy, in essence, taking on our tendency to snub our nose at our detractors these days.:
Our paradigm now seems to be, something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell," Clinton was quoted as saying in a Tuesday AFP report.
Clinton also went on to declare that "you cannot kill, jail or occupy all of your adversaries, sooner or later you're going to have to make a deal." The report also noted that Clinton had suggested the administration was unable to balance foreign and domestic issues, and that the White House had overreacted to French and German opposition to the war.
Clinton, in July of 2002, criticized Bush for trying to pin the corporate malfeasance issue on his two terms in office. He threw a jab in at Bush's Middle East Policy as well:
Clinton said Republicans on Capitol Hill had impeded his proposals for protecting investors. Referring to Bush, Clinton said, "There was corporate malfeasance both before he took office and after. The difference is I actually tried to do something about it, and their party stopped it."
In April, Bush said that Clinton's failed efforts at peacemaking had resulted in more Palestinian violence. In the interview, Clinton criticized Bush's initial disengagement from the Middle East. "I think it was a mistake to get out for a year," he said. "The important thing is that, right now, that they be involved. I always thought that Secretary [of State Colin L.] Powell wanted to do that."
In February of 2003, Clinton criticizes the tax cuts and our decision to not allow the inspectors in Iraq more time:
Clinton said President Bush "deserves a lot of credit for saying we can't just ignore (Saddam's defiance of United Nations resolutions) forever." But he said the United States should give inspectors "a little more time" to look for weapons of mass destruction if that might persuade France, Germany and Russia to support military action to disarm Iraq...
...Saying he would get political on only one issue, Clinton said the 2001 tax cuts were a bad mistake. He said the latest tax cuts proposed by Bush would compromise America's goals of making this country and the world better.
"We cannot meet these commitments and keep giving tax cuts to people of my income bracket," he said.
In an interview with the Guardian.co.uk, he seems to support Blair and Bush, particularly Blair, in their efforts to gather the international community in support of the war, in an article titled Trust Tony's Judgement:
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.
And I know a good, used car salesman. If I could see the hype in Tony Blair's rhetoric...perhaps Clinton suffers from a case of over-identification with those now in power, as though he were the one still making the decisions.
Here, you wish Bill Clinton had kept his mouth shut. I'm also convinced he's living in a parallel universe of some sort, in which he see events through the rosy glow of his own glasses:
I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.
"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."
What he seems to gloss over, is that we are dealing with intelligence exaggeration, even possibly falsification, throughout the administration's rationals for this war. This is war, for the soul of the country, and Clinton wants to forgive an exaggeration or two, that led to the deaths of thousands of innocents.
What Las Vegas world is he living in?
Then I have to wonder if he isn't withholding harsh criticism of the band of thugs running the White House, in hopes for a Hillary run for the White House in 2008:
Bill Clinton: Not If, but When for Hillary Run
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Sunday, Aug. 18, 2002
Former president Bill Clinton has confirmed NewsMax.com's exclusive reports that his wife is hot on the trail to the White House.
Clinton speaks about his wife's run for the presidency as a matter of "when," not "if," say people who have discussed it with him, according to Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier. And several of her associates said she is eyeing 2008 as the year to run.
And the senator is wasting no time gearing up for a run to take her husband's former job in the White House Fournier writes, revealing that she's been busy trying to play down her image as a flaming liberal, hitting out at President Bush, and going to the aid of fellow Democrats who will be in her debt and obliged to come to her aid when she makes her bid for a White House run in 2004 or 2008.
At the moment it seems to be 2008, if, that is, she honors her pledge to serve out her six-year senatorial term which ends in 2006.
"I have no plans to run for president," she told Fournier with what we assume was a straight face during a telephone interview.
Everything she's doing, however, betrays her claim that she is not running hard for the White House and the chance to be America's first woman president. Fournier listed her actions in this regard:
She's given almost "$600,000 to 73 Democratic candidates across the country through her political action committee (PAC) and has raised even more money by headlining fundraisers.
She lent a helping hand to candidates in key early presidential primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Her PAC has given about $15,000 to New Hampshire candidates in tight races and about $21,000 to those in Iowa
She also attended a fundraiser in February for Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and helped raise $20,000 at a New York fundraiser for New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who is running for the Senate, according to Fournier. Moreover, on Sept. 18 she'll stage a fundraiser at her Washington residence for Julie Thomas, a congressional candidate from Iowa.
She's vigorously defended her husband's largely indefensible record as president in the face of attacks from Republicans, at the same time sharpening her criticism of President Bush.
She wooed the party's moderate wing by giving a keynote speech to the so-called "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council.
She has sided with Republicans or centrist Democrats on bankruptcy, welfare and anti-Hollywood legislation.
"It used to be that Democrats came to Washington hoping to work for Ted Kennedy," Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager told Fournier. "Now they want to earn their stripes with Hillary."
Funny, but Ted Kennedy seems more aware of the relevance of the seriousness of the mess we're in as a result of this war, than Bill Clinton. Clinton appears to greatly underestimate the importance of trust between the president and the rest of the country. It appears Bush can't be believed when it comes to the intelligence used to justify the war. Isn't this important, and not just a minor matter of making a mistake with 16 words?
# posted by scorpiorising : 3:59 PM |
Help, I'm stuck in 1992, and I can't get out.
I can understand the Democratic Leadership Council gunning for a "centrist" candidate, but for the DLC to say that attacking Bush on the tax cuts, and the reasons for this war, is a form of political suicide, I would say the DLC is practicing the very thing that it is afraid of.
The DLC is afraid of losing, and it is becoming a sort of self-fullfilling prophecy. They are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; in this case, a deanie baby.
I am encouraged these days by the enthusiasm of democratic supporters, and we need this enthusiasm, no matter who the nominee is when it is all said and done, if we are going to beat Bush. The DLC is trying hard to be a wet blanket right now, moldy and cold. As far as I can see right now, it appears most demo supporters are throwing off that wet blanket. Lucky for us, demos are not bowing down to worship the words and wisdom of the DLC. It is the DLC who are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
I can't help but feel that Bill Clinton is behind some of the attacks on the demo candidates, and the recent policy of the DLC, as the two are supposedly tight. Remember, Clinton is a past president of the DLC, and Clinton supported this war from the beginning. The blogosphere is where one can allow one's paranoia to express, if one is carefull, and it may be paranoia that I am feeling in regards to Clinton; but...what with his recent support of George Bush...I had a feeling of a Bill Clinton completely out of touch with the anguish of many Americans, whether over the war or the economy. He appears locked in his ivory, Harlem tower.
Back to the subject of Dean. I am a hard-core Kucinich supporter, but Dean is getting all the attention, and he is getting some good knocks in as well. Just check out his ad he is running in Texas this week. While Bush "fishes" for the big catches on his vacation, Dean takes him on in his home state of Texas. Coudn't be better timing.
Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com, takes on the issue of the DLC and bad politics:
July 29, 2003 | Has Karl Rove taken over the Democratic Leadership Council? I can't think of another explanation for the centrist clique's destructive guerrilla war against fellow Democrats. Tuesday's New York Times outlines the latest assault: A DLC conference this week devoted to blasting the party's presidential hopefuls for their "far left" critique of President Bush's budget-busting tax cuts and his dishonesty in leading the nation into war. If hitting Bush on those blunders really makes Democrats unelectable, the nation is in worse trouble than the DLC thinks.
No one knows right now which issues will carry the day come November 2004. Bush is stumbling lately, but an economic rebound and some success in pacifying Iraq could send his poll numbers soaring again. The left's perhaps-fatal weakness is wishful thinking about Bush's vulnerability. Yet two facts are and will remain politically crucial: The economy is a shambles at least partly because of Bush's wrongheaded, reward-the-rich tax cuts, and the nation still doesn't know the truth about why we started a bloody, costly war that's a long way from over. Democrats can and do disagree about how to deal with both sets of issues -- how to repair the economy as well as Iraq -- but saying the party shouldn't criticize Bush's approaches is dangerous and delusional.
I live in California, though, and this behavior is familiar to me: It's the standard M.O. of the state Republican Party, whose annual conventions always feature a circular firing squad as part of the entertainment. Decades of ideological infighting and far-right litmus testing has ensured that only the least electable GOP candidates survive in California. Of course there's a key difference between the DLC and California Republicans, in that the centrist group insists it's opposed to extremism, and only wants to make the party more palatable to mainstream voters, while the state GOP seems determined to advance only the most extreme politicians to its top ranks. But the Democratic centrists seem in danger of adopting a political terror strategy that resembles the California GOP's, and it involves doing the enemy's work for them: damaging your own party's candidates by declaring them ideologically flawed and unelectable before the other side has a chance to.
The DLC is afraid of losing, and it is becoming a sort of self-fullfilling prophecy. They are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; in this case, a deanie baby.
I am encouraged these days by the enthusiasm of democratic supporters, and we need this enthusiasm, no matter who the nominee is when it is all said and done, if we are going to beat Bush. The DLC is trying hard to be a wet blanket right now, moldy and cold. As far as I can see right now, it appears most demo supporters are throwing off that wet blanket. Lucky for us, demos are not bowing down to worship the words and wisdom of the DLC. It is the DLC who are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
I can't help but feel that Bill Clinton is behind some of the attacks on the demo candidates, and the recent policy of the DLC, as the two are supposedly tight. Remember, Clinton is a past president of the DLC, and Clinton supported this war from the beginning. The blogosphere is where one can allow one's paranoia to express, if one is carefull, and it may be paranoia that I am feeling in regards to Clinton; but...what with his recent support of George Bush...I had a feeling of a Bill Clinton completely out of touch with the anguish of many Americans, whether over the war or the economy. He appears locked in his ivory, Harlem tower.
Back to the subject of Dean. I am a hard-core Kucinich supporter, but Dean is getting all the attention, and he is getting some good knocks in as well. Just check out his ad he is running in Texas this week. While Bush "fishes" for the big catches on his vacation, Dean takes him on in his home state of Texas. Coudn't be better timing.
Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com, takes on the issue of the DLC and bad politics:
July 29, 2003 | Has Karl Rove taken over the Democratic Leadership Council? I can't think of another explanation for the centrist clique's destructive guerrilla war against fellow Democrats. Tuesday's New York Times outlines the latest assault: A DLC conference this week devoted to blasting the party's presidential hopefuls for their "far left" critique of President Bush's budget-busting tax cuts and his dishonesty in leading the nation into war. If hitting Bush on those blunders really makes Democrats unelectable, the nation is in worse trouble than the DLC thinks.
No one knows right now which issues will carry the day come November 2004. Bush is stumbling lately, but an economic rebound and some success in pacifying Iraq could send his poll numbers soaring again. The left's perhaps-fatal weakness is wishful thinking about Bush's vulnerability. Yet two facts are and will remain politically crucial: The economy is a shambles at least partly because of Bush's wrongheaded, reward-the-rich tax cuts, and the nation still doesn't know the truth about why we started a bloody, costly war that's a long way from over. Democrats can and do disagree about how to deal with both sets of issues -- how to repair the economy as well as Iraq -- but saying the party shouldn't criticize Bush's approaches is dangerous and delusional.
I live in California, though, and this behavior is familiar to me: It's the standard M.O. of the state Republican Party, whose annual conventions always feature a circular firing squad as part of the entertainment. Decades of ideological infighting and far-right litmus testing has ensured that only the least electable GOP candidates survive in California. Of course there's a key difference between the DLC and California Republicans, in that the centrist group insists it's opposed to extremism, and only wants to make the party more palatable to mainstream voters, while the state GOP seems determined to advance only the most extreme politicians to its top ranks. But the Democratic centrists seem in danger of adopting a political terror strategy that resembles the California GOP's, and it involves doing the enemy's work for them: damaging your own party's candidates by declaring them ideologically flawed and unelectable before the other side has a chance to.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:32 AM |
Monday, August 04, 2003
We need democracy in the army.
This is why soldiers should not surrender their right to free speech when they join the military. This is why Rumsfeld's plan to overhaul the army should be viewed with extreme caution, and even horror. This is why the voices of the mostly working-class grunts who make up the army matter. This is why we should not support a policy of preemptive war. This is why wars should be fought only as a last resort. This is why...from David Hackworth, this feedback from a soldier in Iraq:
Feedback from Iraq
Imagine this bastard getting away with such crap if we had a draftee army?
"I do know there are people living in areas with running water and A.C. That, of course, is not us... although my COL lives like that. I do believe he was shielded from the reality by his staff for a while. As we crammed 50 soldiers in to two medium frame tents near a pond of dead fish which was also infested with mosquitos and there was absolutely no field sanitation support for miles, he was living in his own room inside an air conditioned building, had his own king size bed, his own bathroom, his own refrigerator, and his cappuccino machine. It was two weeks before he came down to see where the soldiers were living and that was only after the S4 and CSM kept blowing me off... so, I had to get the Corps Surgeon involved for sanitation reasons.
I do believe the COL is entitled to a higher standard of living, however, the inequality was astounding and even more was the fact that he tried to hide it, by posting guards at the entrance to the hallway and didn't say more than two words to any of the soldiers until two weeks after our arrival in Baghdad. We just needed to hear that he understood our situation and was doing everything he could to improve it."
Feedback from Iraq
Imagine this bastard getting away with such crap if we had a draftee army?
"I do know there are people living in areas with running water and A.C. That, of course, is not us... although my COL lives like that. I do believe he was shielded from the reality by his staff for a while. As we crammed 50 soldiers in to two medium frame tents near a pond of dead fish which was also infested with mosquitos and there was absolutely no field sanitation support for miles, he was living in his own room inside an air conditioned building, had his own king size bed, his own bathroom, his own refrigerator, and his cappuccino machine. It was two weeks before he came down to see where the soldiers were living and that was only after the S4 and CSM kept blowing me off... so, I had to get the Corps Surgeon involved for sanitation reasons.
I do believe the COL is entitled to a higher standard of living, however, the inequality was astounding and even more was the fact that he tried to hide it, by posting guards at the entrance to the hallway and didn't say more than two words to any of the soldiers until two weeks after our arrival in Baghdad. We just needed to hear that he understood our situation and was doing everything he could to improve it."
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:34 AM |
Sunday, August 03, 2003
Tony Blair is a coward.
God forbid that the British detainees in Guatanamo Bay, would be afforded anything close to real justice. As far as Tony Blair is concerned, they need not be brought back to England where they just might be released due to a lack of evidence, nothing too, too important. And we wouldn't want to embarass the British government, least of all Tony Blair, by anthing amounting to real justice for the British detainees at Guatanamo Bay.
Not only is Blair a coward, his priorities are up his arse-hole. From the Agonist originally, this Telegraph.co.uk article:
The Government has told America that it does not want the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be returned for trial in Britain.
Whitehall officials say that the message that Britain does not want its nine detainees returned was conveyed privately to President George W. Bush during the recent visit to Washington by Tony Blair.
The decision comes after advice from government lawyers that it would be very hard to mount a successful prosecution in Britain because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence that is admissible in court. There are also fears that any public trial in Britain would force the disclosure of intelligence operations against al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The Government is also concerned that the collapse of a prosecution in Britain would anger the public and be politically damaging.
A Whitehall aide said: "The Prime Minister made clear to the president that it was unlikely the men would face trial in Britain and that it could be embarrassing if they were released on their return after the US had branded them as major players in a terrorist network."
Not only is Blair a coward, his priorities are up his arse-hole. From the Agonist originally, this Telegraph.co.uk article:
The Government has told America that it does not want the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be returned for trial in Britain.
Whitehall officials say that the message that Britain does not want its nine detainees returned was conveyed privately to President George W. Bush during the recent visit to Washington by Tony Blair.
The decision comes after advice from government lawyers that it would be very hard to mount a successful prosecution in Britain because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence that is admissible in court. There are also fears that any public trial in Britain would force the disclosure of intelligence operations against al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The Government is also concerned that the collapse of a prosecution in Britain would anger the public and be politically damaging.
A Whitehall aide said: "The Prime Minister made clear to the president that it was unlikely the men would face trial in Britain and that it could be embarrassing if they were released on their return after the US had branded them as major players in a terrorist network."
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:09 AM |
Saturday, August 02, 2003
"This government worse ever," Nobel Laureate George A. Akerlof
Eschaton first linked to this yesterday, and there isn't much edification needed. The article says it all, neatly and simply. Also included is the text of the interview with Der Spiegel. And if you want to read a little more on the theories of the Nobel Laureate, click here. From Common Dreams.org:
US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History
George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
BERLIN - American Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the "worst ever" in American history, the online site of the weekly Der Spiegel magazine reported Tuesday.
"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy," said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
"This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible," the 61-year-old scholar added.
Akerlof has been recognized for his research that borrows from sociology, psychology, anthropology and other fields to determine economic influences and outcomes.
His areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty.
US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History
George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
BERLIN - American Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the "worst ever" in American history, the online site of the weekly Der Spiegel magazine reported Tuesday.
"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy," said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
"This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible," the 61-year-old scholar added.
Akerlof has been recognized for his research that borrows from sociology, psychology, anthropology and other fields to determine economic influences and outcomes.
His areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty.
# posted by scorpiorising : 8:07 AM |
Friday, August 01, 2003
A truly excellent article from Salon.com, explores what the focus ought to be, concerning the preidential campaign. This article is worth discussing, as it deals with strategy. I like the idea of focusing on the phoniness of Bush. How can one argue with it? Here is part of the article from Salon.com (glad I finally shelled out 30 bucks for the subscription):
Democrats can't win in '04 by fighting Bush on the issues alone. They have to convince Americans that their warrior president is a phony in a flyboy suit.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jeremy Heimans and Tim Dixon
Aug. 1, 2003 | Rep. Dick Gephardt made his best and perhaps his only significant contribution to defeating George Bush in 2004 last month, when he derided the president's "bring 'em on" challenge to Iraqi attacks on American forces. "Enough of the phony macho rhetoric," Gephardt shot back. The Missouri Democrat's line was more than just padded flight-suit envy. His jibe hints at the strategy that could put a Democrat back in the White House: convincing Americans that Bush is a phony.
The Democrats can only win if they succeed in undermining the president's greatest strength: his credibility as a decisive and authentic wartime leader. The problem is that in such uncertain times many Americans instinctively can't and don't want to believe that George Bush is screwing them. Until the Democrats change how voters view Bush the man, and then link that to a broader critique of his administration, the Democrats will have a hard time punching through.
In 2000, the Bush machine played skillful personality politics to successfully paint Al Gore as inauthenthic, a poser and a "chronic exaggerator." Despite Bush's far more serious exaggerations on Iraq and his tax cuts, he is still riding high on key measures of political character such as trustworthiness (70 percent of Americans say he is trustworthy), personal strength and, spectacularly, as someone who cares about the concerns of ordinary Americans. Even Bush's State of the Union Iraq/uranium lie probably won't much change this, when all the talk about who's to blame is focused on supporting characters and not the man himself.
The core problem with the current Democratic strategy is that a piecemeal, issue-by-issue attack on the policies of the administration will not resonate while Bush retains the esteem and even admiration of many ordinary Americans. And a contest based on issues will only get harder as Bush moves from shoring up his base to moderating his image in the lead-up to next fall. Expect the policy lines to blur amid a renewed focus on domestic issues and a revival of the language and imagery of compassionate conservatism.
The democrats' greatest danger is to run an issues-based campaign that becomes a ritualized liberal/conservative slanging match. Progressives who are flabbergasted at the audacity of Bush's agenda seem to think that simply communicating Bush's policy failures is enough. But this approach will play straight into Karl Rove's chubby hands and trap Democrats in the defensive, dithering posture that has defined them since the Bush presidency began.
So no matter how bad Bush's actual record may be, Democrats simply can't count on fighting the upcoming election on substantive policy grounds alone.
The question is what communications strategy will wear down the personal appeal of Bush as effectively as the "weak and indecisive" tag slapped on Jimmy Carter, and the "out of touch" tag on Bush's father. What characterization can the Democrats use to undermine Bush's image and his greatest perceived strengths? The one label that will stick and could work to undermine the positive personal perceptions of the president comes from Gephardt's line last week: George Bush is a phony. It works, because it has a ring of truth about it -- on everything from Iraq, to the economy, to tax cuts, to Bush's character and personal history.
The Bush-is-a-phony message can work because it starts where the average voter already is -- with a positive view of Bush. It recognizes that Bush may very well look tough, decisive, patriotic, responsible and compassionate. But it asks those voters to look beyond the image.
Sound nasty? It is. But expect the same from Republicans, whomever the Democrats nominate. And this time around, the Democrats clearly cannot run on the perception that Bush is not sufficiently experienced, bright or interested in the job. Those issues have been effectively neutralized as Americans have become used to seeing Bush as their commander in chief at a time of deep insecurity and fear.
Accusing Bush of incompetence will sometimes work -- it's getting airtime on the Iraq issue now. But the incompetence tag is both less damaging and less resonant for the public given the administration's skills in regulating what the public sees of Bush -- with those twice-a-year press conferences and endlessly flattering photo-ops. Besides, the White House will arrange an endless lineup of fall guys to prevent responsibility from reaching the president. CIA director George Tenet was only the first to take a hit. (On Wednesday, Bush finally took responsibility for the State of the Union fib, but only after weeks of his administration pointing the finger of blame at everybody but the president.)
Democrats can't win in '04 by fighting Bush on the issues alone. They have to convince Americans that their warrior president is a phony in a flyboy suit.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jeremy Heimans and Tim Dixon
Aug. 1, 2003 | Rep. Dick Gephardt made his best and perhaps his only significant contribution to defeating George Bush in 2004 last month, when he derided the president's "bring 'em on" challenge to Iraqi attacks on American forces. "Enough of the phony macho rhetoric," Gephardt shot back. The Missouri Democrat's line was more than just padded flight-suit envy. His jibe hints at the strategy that could put a Democrat back in the White House: convincing Americans that Bush is a phony.
The Democrats can only win if they succeed in undermining the president's greatest strength: his credibility as a decisive and authentic wartime leader. The problem is that in such uncertain times many Americans instinctively can't and don't want to believe that George Bush is screwing them. Until the Democrats change how voters view Bush the man, and then link that to a broader critique of his administration, the Democrats will have a hard time punching through.
In 2000, the Bush machine played skillful personality politics to successfully paint Al Gore as inauthenthic, a poser and a "chronic exaggerator." Despite Bush's far more serious exaggerations on Iraq and his tax cuts, he is still riding high on key measures of political character such as trustworthiness (70 percent of Americans say he is trustworthy), personal strength and, spectacularly, as someone who cares about the concerns of ordinary Americans. Even Bush's State of the Union Iraq/uranium lie probably won't much change this, when all the talk about who's to blame is focused on supporting characters and not the man himself.
The core problem with the current Democratic strategy is that a piecemeal, issue-by-issue attack on the policies of the administration will not resonate while Bush retains the esteem and even admiration of many ordinary Americans. And a contest based on issues will only get harder as Bush moves from shoring up his base to moderating his image in the lead-up to next fall. Expect the policy lines to blur amid a renewed focus on domestic issues and a revival of the language and imagery of compassionate conservatism.
The democrats' greatest danger is to run an issues-based campaign that becomes a ritualized liberal/conservative slanging match. Progressives who are flabbergasted at the audacity of Bush's agenda seem to think that simply communicating Bush's policy failures is enough. But this approach will play straight into Karl Rove's chubby hands and trap Democrats in the defensive, dithering posture that has defined them since the Bush presidency began.
So no matter how bad Bush's actual record may be, Democrats simply can't count on fighting the upcoming election on substantive policy grounds alone.
The question is what communications strategy will wear down the personal appeal of Bush as effectively as the "weak and indecisive" tag slapped on Jimmy Carter, and the "out of touch" tag on Bush's father. What characterization can the Democrats use to undermine Bush's image and his greatest perceived strengths? The one label that will stick and could work to undermine the positive personal perceptions of the president comes from Gephardt's line last week: George Bush is a phony. It works, because it has a ring of truth about it -- on everything from Iraq, to the economy, to tax cuts, to Bush's character and personal history.
The Bush-is-a-phony message can work because it starts where the average voter already is -- with a positive view of Bush. It recognizes that Bush may very well look tough, decisive, patriotic, responsible and compassionate. But it asks those voters to look beyond the image.
Sound nasty? It is. But expect the same from Republicans, whomever the Democrats nominate. And this time around, the Democrats clearly cannot run on the perception that Bush is not sufficiently experienced, bright or interested in the job. Those issues have been effectively neutralized as Americans have become used to seeing Bush as their commander in chief at a time of deep insecurity and fear.
Accusing Bush of incompetence will sometimes work -- it's getting airtime on the Iraq issue now. But the incompetence tag is both less damaging and less resonant for the public given the administration's skills in regulating what the public sees of Bush -- with those twice-a-year press conferences and endlessly flattering photo-ops. Besides, the White House will arrange an endless lineup of fall guys to prevent responsibility from reaching the president. CIA director George Tenet was only the first to take a hit. (On Wednesday, Bush finally took responsibility for the State of the Union fib, but only after weeks of his administration pointing the finger of blame at everybody but the president.)
# posted by scorpiorising : 12:21 PM |
Links
- Google News
- HOME
- Contact Me
- WAR CASUALTIES(MY OTHER BLOG)
- BAGHDAD BURNING
- UNQUALIFIED OFFERINGS
- JUAN COLE*INFORMED COMMENT*
- BRAD DELONG
- TOMPAINE.COM
- THE DAILY HOWLER
- DISSENT MAGAZINE
- CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY
- BLAH3.COM
- BLACK SUNDAE
- WAMPUM
- ESCHATON
- ARMS AND THE MAN
- MILL ON LIBERTY
- GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2
- VEILED 4 ALLAH
- BUSY, BUSY, BUSY
- UNENVIABLE SITUATION
- HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
- MATTHEW GROSS
- WHISKEY BAR
- WAR AND PIECE
- DAILY KOS
- GREG PALAST
- BLACK COMMENTATOR
- SURPRISING PATTERN OF FLORIDA'S ELECTION RESULTS
- THE BRAD BLOG
- THE OPEN VOTING CONSORTIUM
- BLACK BOX VOTING
- THE FREE PRESS
- VOTERGATE.TV
- STOLEN ELECTION. AMERICA HIJACKED
- An examination of the Florida election
- blueflu.us
- U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities
- MY DD
- SEEING THE FOREST
- THERE IS NO CRISIS
- VELVET REVOLUTION
- 02/02/2003 - 02/09/2003
- 02/09/2003 - 02/16/2003
- 02/16/2003 - 02/23/2003
- 02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003
- 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003
- 03/09/2003 - 03/16/2003
- 03/16/2003 - 03/23/2003
- 03/23/2003 - 03/30/2003
- 03/30/2003 - 04/06/2003
- 04/06/2003 - 04/13/2003
- 04/13/2003 - 04/20/2003
- 04/20/2003 - 04/27/2003
- 04/27/2003 - 05/04/2003
- 05/04/2003 - 05/11/2003
- 05/11/2003 - 05/18/2003
- 05/18/2003 - 05/25/2003
- 05/25/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/08/2003
- 06/08/2003 - 06/15/2003
- 06/15/2003 - 06/22/2003
- 06/22/2003 - 06/29/2003
- 06/29/2003 - 07/06/2003
- 07/06/2003 - 07/13/2003
- 07/13/2003 - 07/20/2003
- 07/20/2003 - 07/27/2003
- 07/27/2003 - 08/03/2003
- 08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003
- 08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003
- 08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003
- 09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003
- 09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003
- 09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003
- 09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003
- 10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003
- 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003
- 10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003
- 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003
- 11/02/2003 - 11/09/2003
- 11/09/2003 - 11/16/2003
- 11/16/2003 - 11/23/2003
- 11/23/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 11/30/2003 - 12/07/2003
- 12/14/2003 - 12/21/2003
- 01/11/2004 - 01/18/2004
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004
- 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
- 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
- 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
- 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
- 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
- 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
- 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
- 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
- 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
- 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005
