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 |
Thursday, July 31, 2003
The disappearance of white collar jobs.
That whooosh sound is the sound of white collar jobs fleeing overseas, many of them to India. I'll ask this simple question: who in America will be able to afford the products the corporations want us to purchase? From abcnews.com:
Michael Emmons thought he knew how to keep a job as a software programmer.
"You have to continue to keep yourself up to speed," he said. "If you don't, you'll get washed out."
Up to speed or not, Emmons wound up being "washed out" anyway. Last summer, he moved his family from California to Florida for the Siemens Co., makers of electronics and equipment for industries. Not long after, Emmons and 19 other programmers were replaced by cheaper foreign workers.
Adding insult to injury, Emmons and the others had to train their replacements.
"It was the most demoralizing thing I've ever been through," he told ABCNEWS. "After spending all this time in this industry and working to keep my skills up-to-date, I had to now teach foreign workers how to do my job so they could lay me off."
Just as millions of American manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1980s and 1990s, today white-collar American jobs are disappearing. Foreign nationals on special work visas are filling some positions but most jobs are simply contracted out overseas.
"The train has left the station, the cows have left the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube," said John McCarthy, director of research at Forrester Research, who has studied the exodus of white-collar jobs overseas. "However you want to talk about it, you're not going to turn the tide on this in the same way we couldn't turn the tide on the manufacturing shift."
India Calling
Almost 500,000 white-collar American jobs have already found their way offshore, to the Philippines, Malaysia and China. Russia and Eastern Europe are expected to be next. But no country has captured more American jobs than India.
Michael Emmons thought he knew how to keep a job as a software programmer.
"You have to continue to keep yourself up to speed," he said. "If you don't, you'll get washed out."
Up to speed or not, Emmons wound up being "washed out" anyway. Last summer, he moved his family from California to Florida for the Siemens Co., makers of electronics and equipment for industries. Not long after, Emmons and 19 other programmers were replaced by cheaper foreign workers.
Adding insult to injury, Emmons and the others had to train their replacements.
"It was the most demoralizing thing I've ever been through," he told ABCNEWS. "After spending all this time in this industry and working to keep my skills up-to-date, I had to now teach foreign workers how to do my job so they could lay me off."
Just as millions of American manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1980s and 1990s, today white-collar American jobs are disappearing. Foreign nationals on special work visas are filling some positions but most jobs are simply contracted out overseas.
"The train has left the station, the cows have left the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube," said John McCarthy, director of research at Forrester Research, who has studied the exodus of white-collar jobs overseas. "However you want to talk about it, you're not going to turn the tide on this in the same way we couldn't turn the tide on the manufacturing shift."
India Calling
Almost 500,000 white-collar American jobs have already found their way offshore, to the Philippines, Malaysia and China. Russia and Eastern Europe are expected to be next. But no country has captured more American jobs than India.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:39 AM |
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Iraqi civilians shot by American soldiers.
And finally, this article demonstrates that whatever shred of decency we have left in us as a nation, ought to be directed at ending the violence in Iraq, even if it means immediately withdrawing our own troops. From the guardian.co.uk:
The first vehicle to get unlucky was a Chevrolet Malibu. For some reason, the driver did not stop as he approached the roadblock and the soldiers opened fire. Mr Saad had taken cover behind a wall. When he dared to look up, the soldiers were dragging two men away from the car. "I think they were dead," he said.
Fifteen minutes later, a Toyota Corona being driven by a man called Mazin, who was disabled and walked with the aid of a frame, arrived in the area. His wife was in the passenger seat and his teenage son in the back. If he had turned left out of the small lane that led to their house, they might all still be alive.
Instead, Mazin made the mistake of turning right towards the roadblock. A bullet from the volley of shots fired at the car passed through the windscreen and blew off the right half his head, according to Ahmed Ibrahim, who runs an optician's shop opposite the Al Sa'ah restaurant.
Nobody on the street yesterday seemed to know what had happened to his wife or teenage son, only that they had been injured and taken away by the Americans.
The first vehicle to get unlucky was a Chevrolet Malibu. For some reason, the driver did not stop as he approached the roadblock and the soldiers opened fire. Mr Saad had taken cover behind a wall. When he dared to look up, the soldiers were dragging two men away from the car. "I think they were dead," he said.
Fifteen minutes later, a Toyota Corona being driven by a man called Mazin, who was disabled and walked with the aid of a frame, arrived in the area. His wife was in the passenger seat and his teenage son in the back. If he had turned left out of the small lane that led to their house, they might all still be alive.
Instead, Mazin made the mistake of turning right towards the roadblock. A bullet from the volley of shots fired at the car passed through the windscreen and blew off the right half his head, according to Ahmed Ibrahim, who runs an optician's shop opposite the Al Sa'ah restaurant.
Nobody on the street yesterday seemed to know what had happened to his wife or teenage son, only that they had been injured and taken away by the Americans.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:49 PM |
The soul of the party, and economics
There is a fight going on for the soul of the democratic party, that is now becoming more apparent to myself, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC believes we ought to be more centrist, in order to win the presidency. Yesterday, Kos on the Daily Kos asked for suggestions for bumber stickers for the DLC (seriously folks), only, he didn't get many serious answers. Many were quite hilarious. My contribution was this:
"Help, I'm stuck in 1992, and I can't get out", which is, admittedly, not very funny, but is a reference to the DLC's obsession with Bill Clinton, and how Clinton was as a centrist.
All of this begs further study, of course, which I don't have time for today. The farmer at Escaton links to Digby at Hullabalo, for an analysis of the DLC:
It seems that by the DLC’s calculation, the “far left” doesn’t consist of Green party members or anti-globalization protestors or radical groups like Earth First and Peta. According to them, middle aged, middle class Democrats like me who enthusiastically backed charter DLC favorite sons Clinton and Gore in 3 successive presidential elections, supported the wars in Kosovo and in Afghanistan, aren’t fond of bureaucrats whether they work for government or the corporations, respect the need to curb long term deficit spending and come down on the side of the CATO institute as much as the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties…are now “far left.”
Concering a subject important to me right now, economics, the farmer also linked to an awesome sight called the Conceptual Gurerilla's Strategy and Tactics, on the subject "cheap labor conservatives".
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “big government tyranny”. In fact, the whole idea that the “private sector” is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What the he wants is the “privatized tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it -- “cheap labor”.
"Help, I'm stuck in 1992, and I can't get out", which is, admittedly, not very funny, but is a reference to the DLC's obsession with Bill Clinton, and how Clinton was as a centrist.
All of this begs further study, of course, which I don't have time for today. The farmer at Escaton links to Digby at Hullabalo, for an analysis of the DLC:
It seems that by the DLC’s calculation, the “far left” doesn’t consist of Green party members or anti-globalization protestors or radical groups like Earth First and Peta. According to them, middle aged, middle class Democrats like me who enthusiastically backed charter DLC favorite sons Clinton and Gore in 3 successive presidential elections, supported the wars in Kosovo and in Afghanistan, aren’t fond of bureaucrats whether they work for government or the corporations, respect the need to curb long term deficit spending and come down on the side of the CATO institute as much as the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties…are now “far left.”
Concering a subject important to me right now, economics, the farmer also linked to an awesome sight called the Conceptual Gurerilla's Strategy and Tactics, on the subject "cheap labor conservatives".
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “big government tyranny”. In fact, the whole idea that the “private sector” is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What the he wants is the “privatized tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it -- “cheap labor”.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:21 PM |
Bounty hunters
Today I'm going to link to some good posts, as I don't have time for much else. Here is Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo fame, on the decision by the Texas republicans to consider the use of, yes I'm not kidding, bounty hunters, to reign in those rebeleous Texas democrats:
In any case, without the ability to use the state police, Republican state officials are now considering sending bounty-hunters across state lines to bring them back -- an idea you can certainly understand since bounty-hunters are such an upstanding and constitutionally-minded group of characters. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has helpfully obliged by issuing an opinion okaying the bounty hunter idea.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has provided the Dems with a state police detail to protect them and, reportedly, has vowed to press kidnapping charges against any bounty hunters who try to take them into custody.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the ultimate author of all this ridiculousness, is off on a tour of the Middle East where, one would imagine, he'll fit right in.
In any case, without the ability to use the state police, Republican state officials are now considering sending bounty-hunters across state lines to bring them back -- an idea you can certainly understand since bounty-hunters are such an upstanding and constitutionally-minded group of characters. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has helpfully obliged by issuing an opinion okaying the bounty hunter idea.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has provided the Dems with a state police detail to protect them and, reportedly, has vowed to press kidnapping charges against any bounty hunters who try to take them into custody.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the ultimate author of all this ridiculousness, is off on a tour of the Middle East where, one would imagine, he'll fit right in.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:54 PM |
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
The trees tell the story.
This story adds to the weight of judgement on Israel. Even while the Isreali government talks of peace, they allow this to happen. When you destroy a person's livelihood, are you not destroying their security in the world? Is the Israeli government, and some of its people, adhering to a genocidal policy towards the Palestinians?
From the Telegraph.co.uk:
Palestinian olive trees sold to rich Israelis
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 28/11/2002)
Israel's Defence Ministry is investigating reports that Palestinian olive trees uprooted to make way for a security fence are being sold illegally to rich Israelis and town councils, sometimes for thousands of pounds each.
The illegal trade in olive trees has flourished as Israeli contractors, supported by armed guards, clear Palestinian agricultural land where an 80-mile electronic fence is being built to seal off the West Bank.
Thousands of olive trees have been dug up to make way for the 150-ft wide barrier and security zone. Its route usually passes inside Palestinian territory, not along the old pre-1967 border, and thousands of Palestinian farmers say their livelihood is being taken away.
Sale of the olive trees emerged after the owner of a contracting company offered two reporters from a popular Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, 100 large olive trees for £150 each.
The reporters found one enormous tree, said to be 600 years old, on sale at an Israeli plant nursery for £3,500. They said the trade was conducted with the complicity of an official in the civil administration, the Israeli military government in the occupied territories.
Olive trees are extremely hardy, can live for hundreds of years and will often stand transplanting. Gnarled old specimens which are claimed, with some exaggeration, to have been alive at the time of Jesus are much sought after for gardens of the rich or city parks.
The Defence Ministry, which is in charge of the security fence, said it had launched an investigation. "The ministry pays contractors for uprooting and replanting and, in their contract, there is no clause that allows for trade in the trees. If there is such a trade, it is a criminal activity," it said.
Some contracts require the olive trees to be relocated to areas suggested by their owners outside the Israeli-declared security zone. But Yael Stein, researcher for B'tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, said: "We have never seen any relocation. The contractors cannot just sell the trees. That is theft."
While the trees may be ornaments to Israelis, olives are the lifeblood of Palestinian agriculture, almost the only crop which grows on the stony hillsides of the West Bank without irrigation. Most Palestinians are unemployed after two years of violence and their staple diet is bread and olive oil.
About 11,000 Palestinian farmers will lose all or some of their land holdings to the fence. Sharif Omar, from the village of Jayous, near the Israeli town of Kochav Yair, said: "I have lost almost everything. I have lost 2,700 fruit and olive trees. And 44 of 50 acres I own have been confiscated for the fence."
His village lost seven wells, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus and other fruit trees. "This area is the agricultural store for the West Bank. They are destroying us," he said.
Israel is offering compensation for confiscated agricultural land but Palestinians are unlikely to apply, as they still hope to get their land back.
The Palestinian Agriculture Ministry says 200,000 olive trees have been destroyed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the past two years to provide security for settlers.
The £90 million fence will prevent suicide bombers infiltrating into Israel. But some Israeli border communities say depriving Palestinians of their livelihood will make for worse, not better, neighbours.
From the Telegraph.co.uk:
Palestinian olive trees sold to rich Israelis
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 28/11/2002)
Israel's Defence Ministry is investigating reports that Palestinian olive trees uprooted to make way for a security fence are being sold illegally to rich Israelis and town councils, sometimes for thousands of pounds each.
The illegal trade in olive trees has flourished as Israeli contractors, supported by armed guards, clear Palestinian agricultural land where an 80-mile electronic fence is being built to seal off the West Bank.
Thousands of olive trees have been dug up to make way for the 150-ft wide barrier and security zone. Its route usually passes inside Palestinian territory, not along the old pre-1967 border, and thousands of Palestinian farmers say their livelihood is being taken away.
Sale of the olive trees emerged after the owner of a contracting company offered two reporters from a popular Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, 100 large olive trees for £150 each.
The reporters found one enormous tree, said to be 600 years old, on sale at an Israeli plant nursery for £3,500. They said the trade was conducted with the complicity of an official in the civil administration, the Israeli military government in the occupied territories.
Olive trees are extremely hardy, can live for hundreds of years and will often stand transplanting. Gnarled old specimens which are claimed, with some exaggeration, to have been alive at the time of Jesus are much sought after for gardens of the rich or city parks.
The Defence Ministry, which is in charge of the security fence, said it had launched an investigation. "The ministry pays contractors for uprooting and replanting and, in their contract, there is no clause that allows for trade in the trees. If there is such a trade, it is a criminal activity," it said.
Some contracts require the olive trees to be relocated to areas suggested by their owners outside the Israeli-declared security zone. But Yael Stein, researcher for B'tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, said: "We have never seen any relocation. The contractors cannot just sell the trees. That is theft."
While the trees may be ornaments to Israelis, olives are the lifeblood of Palestinian agriculture, almost the only crop which grows on the stony hillsides of the West Bank without irrigation. Most Palestinians are unemployed after two years of violence and their staple diet is bread and olive oil.
About 11,000 Palestinian farmers will lose all or some of their land holdings to the fence. Sharif Omar, from the village of Jayous, near the Israeli town of Kochav Yair, said: "I have lost almost everything. I have lost 2,700 fruit and olive trees. And 44 of 50 acres I own have been confiscated for the fence."
His village lost seven wells, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus and other fruit trees. "This area is the agricultural store for the West Bank. They are destroying us," he said.
Israel is offering compensation for confiscated agricultural land but Palestinians are unlikely to apply, as they still hope to get their land back.
The Palestinian Agriculture Ministry says 200,000 olive trees have been destroyed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the past two years to provide security for settlers.
The £90 million fence will prevent suicide bombers infiltrating into Israel. But some Israeli border communities say depriving Palestinians of their livelihood will make for worse, not better, neighbours.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:19 PM |
A new economy.
I am thinking on the subject of economics these days, and considering reading a good deal on the subject. I have been reading Howard Zinn, Declarations of Independence, and am inspired to read some of the works he has referred to, including the Communist Manifesto.
There is so much strife in the world that ultimately seems to be related somehow to the "issue" of economics, that a very plain and simple reality stares me in the face everyday. The economies of our times, in most countries, is not efficient enough, if you will, to deal with the most pressing problems and needs of the people that the economies serve.
I use the word "efficient" for lack of a better one, for now. People are going hungry. People are without shelter. Many without adequate self-support to take care of their basic needs.
The economies of nations are reflections of collections of beliefs about the sharing and distribution of resources. It is beliefs that form the basis of economies. If beliefs can change, then economies can change. Economies can be made to be more respondent and flexible to the true needs of the people that it serves. When I say true needs, I am referring to basic issues: food, clothing, shelter, health care, jobs and education. It seems that all the needs I mentioned are required for most to feel safe, secure and that they are a needed and contributing member of their community.
It is my belief that we need each and every individual, to contribute their talents and abilities, for a community to be healthy and thriving. If due to health reasons, a person cannot make a "traditional" contribution, then the person ought to be cared for. It is nothing short of what we would expect for ourselves.
I know these thoughts are phrased somewhat primitively, simply. As I said, economics is a subject that for myself, begs further study.
There is so much strife in the world that ultimately seems to be related somehow to the "issue" of economics, that a very plain and simple reality stares me in the face everyday. The economies of our times, in most countries, is not efficient enough, if you will, to deal with the most pressing problems and needs of the people that the economies serve.
I use the word "efficient" for lack of a better one, for now. People are going hungry. People are without shelter. Many without adequate self-support to take care of their basic needs.
The economies of nations are reflections of collections of beliefs about the sharing and distribution of resources. It is beliefs that form the basis of economies. If beliefs can change, then economies can change. Economies can be made to be more respondent and flexible to the true needs of the people that it serves. When I say true needs, I am referring to basic issues: food, clothing, shelter, health care, jobs and education. It seems that all the needs I mentioned are required for most to feel safe, secure and that they are a needed and contributing member of their community.
It is my belief that we need each and every individual, to contribute their talents and abilities, for a community to be healthy and thriving. If due to health reasons, a person cannot make a "traditional" contribution, then the person ought to be cared for. It is nothing short of what we would expect for ourselves.
I know these thoughts are phrased somewhat primitively, simply. As I said, economics is a subject that for myself, begs further study.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:32 PM |
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich
My friend Jeremy doesn't believe Kucinich is electable. We are having a series of email exchanges on the subject, that began with an email from a friend of his:
<< Kucinich is a good man and I agree with his views more than the rest,
but like Ralph Nader, I think he's too radical to get elected, and if he
was elected, I think he'd be too radical to build the necessary
consensuses to get anything done. >>
Ben
I'm curious to know if you think I'm excessively cynical to
consider electibility in supporting a candidate. There are those I know
who apparently do. Of course, I also expressed a consideration about his
effectiveness as President.
I believe Bush II (by which I mean the military/industrial
complex) is extremely ruthless and dangerous when it comes to political
opposition. I strongly suspect that Paul Wellstone was murdered, for
example. I think the anthrax attacks were staged by domestic
intelligence services to maximize public fear and malleability. I think
it's curious that a full, public investigation of the events of 9/11 has
been opposed by the administration, which profited enormously from them
in terms of power and control. The 2000 election debacle, I think,
shows Bush II's complete disdain for democratic principles and respect
for the Constitution, the rule of law and fair play. I believe the tax
cuts and corporate deregulation are essentially bribes to the American
ruling class, including the mass media and our senators and
representatives.
While I tend to identify more with Kucinich's ideas, I think he's
too fringe left and I don't think he's tough enough to face Bush II and
win. Al Gore wasn't tough enough. Howard Dean or John Kerry, I think,
might be tough enough, but whoever is the candidate will need the
overwhelming support of the American voting public. If it's close again,
Bush II holds all the cards and they're not above resorting to violence.
J( *}
Here's where I jump in:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:25 -0500 "elizabeth cook"
> writes:
>Jeremy,
>You actually seem to know little about Kucinich. If you did, you would
>know that he has "balls the size of Texas", as one supporter put it. He
>is extremely tough, fighting battle after battle against Bush, et al in
>the House of Representatives. You say he is on the "fringe", yet he
>co-chairs the progressive caucus in the H. of R. I'm not sure why you
>think Dean is tougher. You haven't explained yourself on that one. If you
>ever saw Kucinich on TV, he is as tough as nails in a debate, while Dean
>really floundered on Meet the Press. I'll say this for Kucinich, he has
>the courage of his convictions, while Dean is an obvious political
>opportunist, who is willing to sway with public opinion on many issues.
>He steers clear of controversial issues by claiming "states rights".
>Apparently, you and many others, don't have the courage of your
>convictions to stand up and support someone you really agree with. It is
>curious to me. When I first "discovered" Kucinich, I was sure he would
>catch on. Instead, all I have heard is he "can't be elected". It seems
>the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who agree with
>his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one they agree
>with, the rest could be history.
>Betsy
Jeremy responds:
Betsy,
> We have different ideas of what it means to be tough in the
>political arena. Being in-your-face ideological and confrontational is
>the obvious way to be tough, like Bush. Bill Clinton was a really tough
>politician, a diplomatic, persistent one who could stand up to the most
>scathing criticism and even an impeachment and survive and succeed and
>never even lose his good humor.
> Sooner or later, Bush is going down because he's brittle inside.
>To me, Kucinich thinks well, he's very smart, but he doesn't know
>craftiness or diplomacy. He asks tough questions but he doesn't know how
>to get them answered -- those questions posed to Dick Cheney are good
>questions, but Cheney will blow them off and there's nothing Kucinich can
>do about it. A really tough politician would ask those questions in a
>forum where he couldn't be ignored. If this was poker, Kucinich shows
>his hand too quickly, before he's suckered the opposition into building
>up the pot. He has no charm except to those who agree with him and want
>him to win. You need charm to persuade the opposition to back you.
> You can also use fear, like Bush II does. They do it through
>sheer terrifying ruthlessness and that's where their real toughness lies.
> We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and
>deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter
>their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax.
> I don't know if Dean or Kerry is all that's necessary. I think
>they might be. I feel sure that Kucinich isn't, even though I like him
>because we agree. I think a smart politician doesn't let all his
>personal convictions be known too easily -- his enemies can use that
>knowledge against him. Kucinich has already been buried by the pundits
>because they know exactly where he stands on every issue and that means
>his opposition will not be surprised and already knows how to counter
>him.
>
><< It seems the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who
>agree with his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one
>they agree with, the rest could be history. >>
>
> I disagree. People like you who completely agree with Kucinich
>do support him. I don't agree with him entirely because I disagree with
>his lack of subtlety and diplomacy. The people who say he can't be
>elected are the pundits whose job it is to handicap races, and they see
>his political weaknesses. His honesty makes him vulnerable. You dismiss
>the pundits because you want them to be wrong; I don't, because I
>consider them knowledgeable.
> I hope you'll continue to support Kucinich with enthusiasm. The
>more people support him, the more the main candidates will be pulled to
>the left rhetorically to try to co-opt his supporters.
> Something that makes Bush uncommonly dangerous, though, is that
>he lies continuously and without conscience. Fortunately, he's not too
>smart -- he doesn't know what to say to co-opt his opponent's supporters.
> He does have advisers, though. His advisers will be coming up with all
>sorts of sneaky tricks before election day. And then there's the tricks
>of the military/industrial complex for us to contend with, up to and
>probably including massive vote fraud next year.
> We're going to need a very strong Democratic candidate with a
>very broad appeal who can deliver a decisive victory that can't be
>stolen. That's got to be someone who at least seems much more mainstream
>and centrist than Dennis Kucinich.
>
>J( *}
And then I say:
Jeremy,
"His honesty makes him vulnerable". Honest usually does. If what you are arguing is that Dean is withholding important information about himself, in order to surprise his opponents later, I'm scratching my head on that one.
I know of a Taoist saying that goes something like this: the beginning holds the seeds to the end. If Dean is ambiguous and equivocal now, he will be then, whenever 'then' is. If Kucinich is blunt and honest now, he will be then. I mean really, are you advocating dishonesty?
I think Dean is making clear is that he is willing to compromise his principals in order to be elected. He is willing to put up with guns everywhere in order to please the NRA. He is willing to put up with a bloated military budget. He is willing to put up with the death penalty. He is willing to put up with the banning of marajuana for medicinal purposes. If Dean isn't choosing to be honest now about his true belliefs, what makes you think he will be honest later?
Personally, I believe it is time for someone who is in your face, confrontational and honest with what he truly believes. I am a little surprised at you defending the classic, political huckster, the charming, snake-like dealer. Clinton was full of charm, and managed to hand over his presidency to his enemies. Yes, he survived impeachment; but his political enemies in the process managed to steal the limelight from the real issues facing this country.
I appreciate Clinton's efforts to whittle down the deficit. He did a good job with that. Honestly, though, the recession seemed unavoidable due to incredible corporate corruption and greed and hyper inflated stock, and lies told the public about the true worth of their stock, all happening in the Clinton administration.
I'm not blaming Clinton, but a pattern was continued that has been going on since practically the birth of this country, that laws are passed to favor the rich and those who want to get richer, and wars are fought to benefit the rich, to put it simply, while the poor are ignored, used and oppressed, and the middle class suckored.
By the way, I wasn't able to read your essay on the Civil War, though I did read your summation of it in one of your emails, I believe, to one of your brothers. I would like to have that essay again, if you don't mind.Your ideas on the Civil War as not necessarily needing to be fought, are thought provoking and insightful. Very Howard Zinnian, as well. I believe we have to take the courage to re-envision and reinterpret our past, in order to better understand present day events.
Howard Zinn, in his book Declarations of Independence, even takes on our justifications for entering WW2. It is interesting reading.
When I read about your essay on the Civil War and Lincoln, when I read Howard Zinn, I get a very similar feeling when I study the positions of Kucinich. He is willing to confront popular notions and beliefs with a candor and bluntness that is incredibly refreshing. He is electrifying and not afraid to turn popularly held notions upside down, such as our commitment to NAFTA and the WTO.
It is also about siphoning through the complexity and the layers of things, to try to find their roots. I believe Kucinich tries hard to do this. Remember the Frontline special that we saw together, that began with a clip of Paula Poundstone entertaining some sort of convention where Clinton as president was attending, along with many CEOs from major, international corporations. She asked, "Who decides who sits next to the president?" I remember the Chiquita Banana ceo was on one side of Clinton. Can't remember who was on the other.
She made a brilliant point, and until the underlying strength of that point is examined openly, we will never take back our democracy from the rich. Dean worries me precisely because he seems so enamored of power, he is willing, like many before him, to compromise parts of himself in order to seem more palatable to the general public. Unfortunately, what winds up happening, the person doing the compromising begins to lose sight of who they really are. I believe that was also one of the underlying issues with the Gore run for the presidency. He was a man of many contradictions, with a wealthy background, and apparently to me, contradictory beliefs.
I am not per se, targeting wealth as "the problem", but I am targeting the laws that allow for the unfair accumulation of wealth, and the shifting of the the tax burden to the middle and working class, to the benefit of the upper tier.
With Kucinich, I have the distinct feeling that what you see is what you get. He wears his heart on his sleave, he's a tireless worker, and his heart is in the right place. He's not afraid of losing, obviously, because otherwise he wouldn't be so upfront about his beliefs. With Dean, there seems to be a real calculation to avoid losing. Consequently, he may wind up losing a part of himself in the process. I see this as a general tendency among most politicians, by the way, not just Dean.
But our politicians reflect fundamental truths about ourselves. Is it that Kucinich is unelectable, or is it that we are unwilling to confront the difficult issues with much needed candor and hard work? Makes life more complex to do that.
Regarding certain points of your argument, what forum would you suggest for Kucinich's letter to Cheney? Tompaine.commonsense seems like a pretty good one given that the media is not likely to print such a letter. Kucinich has been speaking out tirelessly on the issue of faulty intelligence, by the way, whenever possible, in speeches to the general public and before Congress.
Yes, Bush is idealogical and confrontational, and also a pathological liar. He can never give specifics as to the nature or reasons for his beliefs, because he has to keep those secret. Kucinich is not shy about sharing specifics. You say Kucinich doesn't know craftiness or diplomacy, though the two traits seem mutually exclusive. He is a member of the House of Representatives with an excellent reputation. I haven't followed all of the battles and legislation that he is responsible for; I did though, see a very conservative House member defend Kucinich on TV, on one of his stances.
I really confused on this: "We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax."
Why do we need to charm them? What we need to do is expose them, their lies and corruption. Daschle and Gephardt and Kerry and all the rest tried to play the game their way, and we wound embroiled in a war that is a humanitarian disaster.
Please don't forget to send me your civil war essay. As always, I enjoy the exchange,
Betsy
<< Kucinich is a good man and I agree with his views more than the rest,
but like Ralph Nader, I think he's too radical to get elected, and if he
was elected, I think he'd be too radical to build the necessary
consensuses to get anything done. >>
Ben
I'm curious to know if you think I'm excessively cynical to
consider electibility in supporting a candidate. There are those I know
who apparently do. Of course, I also expressed a consideration about his
effectiveness as President.
I believe Bush II (by which I mean the military/industrial
complex) is extremely ruthless and dangerous when it comes to political
opposition. I strongly suspect that Paul Wellstone was murdered, for
example. I think the anthrax attacks were staged by domestic
intelligence services to maximize public fear and malleability. I think
it's curious that a full, public investigation of the events of 9/11 has
been opposed by the administration, which profited enormously from them
in terms of power and control. The 2000 election debacle, I think,
shows Bush II's complete disdain for democratic principles and respect
for the Constitution, the rule of law and fair play. I believe the tax
cuts and corporate deregulation are essentially bribes to the American
ruling class, including the mass media and our senators and
representatives.
While I tend to identify more with Kucinich's ideas, I think he's
too fringe left and I don't think he's tough enough to face Bush II and
win. Al Gore wasn't tough enough. Howard Dean or John Kerry, I think,
might be tough enough, but whoever is the candidate will need the
overwhelming support of the American voting public. If it's close again,
Bush II holds all the cards and they're not above resorting to violence.
J( *}
Here's where I jump in:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:25 -0500 "elizabeth cook"
> writes:
>Jeremy,
>You actually seem to know little about Kucinich. If you did, you would
>know that he has "balls the size of Texas", as one supporter put it. He
>is extremely tough, fighting battle after battle against Bush, et al in
>the House of Representatives. You say he is on the "fringe", yet he
>co-chairs the progressive caucus in the H. of R. I'm not sure why you
>think Dean is tougher. You haven't explained yourself on that one. If you
>ever saw Kucinich on TV, he is as tough as nails in a debate, while Dean
>really floundered on Meet the Press. I'll say this for Kucinich, he has
>the courage of his convictions, while Dean is an obvious political
>opportunist, who is willing to sway with public opinion on many issues.
>He steers clear of controversial issues by claiming "states rights".
>Apparently, you and many others, don't have the courage of your
>convictions to stand up and support someone you really agree with. It is
>curious to me. When I first "discovered" Kucinich, I was sure he would
>catch on. Instead, all I have heard is he "can't be elected". It seems
>the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who agree with
>his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one they agree
>with, the rest could be history.
>Betsy
Jeremy responds:
Betsy,
> We have different ideas of what it means to be tough in the
>political arena. Being in-your-face ideological and confrontational is
>the obvious way to be tough, like Bush. Bill Clinton was a really tough
>politician, a diplomatic, persistent one who could stand up to the most
>scathing criticism and even an impeachment and survive and succeed and
>never even lose his good humor.
> Sooner or later, Bush is going down because he's brittle inside.
>To me, Kucinich thinks well, he's very smart, but he doesn't know
>craftiness or diplomacy. He asks tough questions but he doesn't know how
>to get them answered -- those questions posed to Dick Cheney are good
>questions, but Cheney will blow them off and there's nothing Kucinich can
>do about it. A really tough politician would ask those questions in a
>forum where he couldn't be ignored. If this was poker, Kucinich shows
>his hand too quickly, before he's suckered the opposition into building
>up the pot. He has no charm except to those who agree with him and want
>him to win. You need charm to persuade the opposition to back you.
> You can also use fear, like Bush II does. They do it through
>sheer terrifying ruthlessness and that's where their real toughness lies.
> We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and
>deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter
>their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax.
> I don't know if Dean or Kerry is all that's necessary. I think
>they might be. I feel sure that Kucinich isn't, even though I like him
>because we agree. I think a smart politician doesn't let all his
>personal convictions be known too easily -- his enemies can use that
>knowledge against him. Kucinich has already been buried by the pundits
>because they know exactly where he stands on every issue and that means
>his opposition will not be surprised and already knows how to counter
>him.
>
><< It seems the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who
>agree with his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one
>they agree with, the rest could be history. >>
>
> I disagree. People like you who completely agree with Kucinich
>do support him. I don't agree with him entirely because I disagree with
>his lack of subtlety and diplomacy. The people who say he can't be
>elected are the pundits whose job it is to handicap races, and they see
>his political weaknesses. His honesty makes him vulnerable. You dismiss
>the pundits because you want them to be wrong; I don't, because I
>consider them knowledgeable.
> I hope you'll continue to support Kucinich with enthusiasm. The
>more people support him, the more the main candidates will be pulled to
>the left rhetorically to try to co-opt his supporters.
> Something that makes Bush uncommonly dangerous, though, is that
>he lies continuously and without conscience. Fortunately, he's not too
>smart -- he doesn't know what to say to co-opt his opponent's supporters.
> He does have advisers, though. His advisers will be coming up with all
>sorts of sneaky tricks before election day. And then there's the tricks
>of the military/industrial complex for us to contend with, up to and
>probably including massive vote fraud next year.
> We're going to need a very strong Democratic candidate with a
>very broad appeal who can deliver a decisive victory that can't be
>stolen. That's got to be someone who at least seems much more mainstream
>and centrist than Dennis Kucinich.
>
>J( *}
And then I say:
Jeremy,
"His honesty makes him vulnerable". Honest usually does. If what you are arguing is that Dean is withholding important information about himself, in order to surprise his opponents later, I'm scratching my head on that one.
I know of a Taoist saying that goes something like this: the beginning holds the seeds to the end. If Dean is ambiguous and equivocal now, he will be then, whenever 'then' is. If Kucinich is blunt and honest now, he will be then. I mean really, are you advocating dishonesty?
I think Dean is making clear is that he is willing to compromise his principals in order to be elected. He is willing to put up with guns everywhere in order to please the NRA. He is willing to put up with a bloated military budget. He is willing to put up with the death penalty. He is willing to put up with the banning of marajuana for medicinal purposes. If Dean isn't choosing to be honest now about his true belliefs, what makes you think he will be honest later?
Personally, I believe it is time for someone who is in your face, confrontational and honest with what he truly believes. I am a little surprised at you defending the classic, political huckster, the charming, snake-like dealer. Clinton was full of charm, and managed to hand over his presidency to his enemies. Yes, he survived impeachment; but his political enemies in the process managed to steal the limelight from the real issues facing this country.
I appreciate Clinton's efforts to whittle down the deficit. He did a good job with that. Honestly, though, the recession seemed unavoidable due to incredible corporate corruption and greed and hyper inflated stock, and lies told the public about the true worth of their stock, all happening in the Clinton administration.
I'm not blaming Clinton, but a pattern was continued that has been going on since practically the birth of this country, that laws are passed to favor the rich and those who want to get richer, and wars are fought to benefit the rich, to put it simply, while the poor are ignored, used and oppressed, and the middle class suckored.
By the way, I wasn't able to read your essay on the Civil War, though I did read your summation of it in one of your emails, I believe, to one of your brothers. I would like to have that essay again, if you don't mind.Your ideas on the Civil War as not necessarily needing to be fought, are thought provoking and insightful. Very Howard Zinnian, as well. I believe we have to take the courage to re-envision and reinterpret our past, in order to better understand present day events.
Howard Zinn, in his book Declarations of Independence, even takes on our justifications for entering WW2. It is interesting reading.
When I read about your essay on the Civil War and Lincoln, when I read Howard Zinn, I get a very similar feeling when I study the positions of Kucinich. He is willing to confront popular notions and beliefs with a candor and bluntness that is incredibly refreshing. He is electrifying and not afraid to turn popularly held notions upside down, such as our commitment to NAFTA and the WTO.
It is also about siphoning through the complexity and the layers of things, to try to find their roots. I believe Kucinich tries hard to do this. Remember the Frontline special that we saw together, that began with a clip of Paula Poundstone entertaining some sort of convention where Clinton as president was attending, along with many CEOs from major, international corporations. She asked, "Who decides who sits next to the president?" I remember the Chiquita Banana ceo was on one side of Clinton. Can't remember who was on the other.
She made a brilliant point, and until the underlying strength of that point is examined openly, we will never take back our democracy from the rich. Dean worries me precisely because he seems so enamored of power, he is willing, like many before him, to compromise parts of himself in order to seem more palatable to the general public. Unfortunately, what winds up happening, the person doing the compromising begins to lose sight of who they really are. I believe that was also one of the underlying issues with the Gore run for the presidency. He was a man of many contradictions, with a wealthy background, and apparently to me, contradictory beliefs.
I am not per se, targeting wealth as "the problem", but I am targeting the laws that allow for the unfair accumulation of wealth, and the shifting of the the tax burden to the middle and working class, to the benefit of the upper tier.
With Kucinich, I have the distinct feeling that what you see is what you get. He wears his heart on his sleave, he's a tireless worker, and his heart is in the right place. He's not afraid of losing, obviously, because otherwise he wouldn't be so upfront about his beliefs. With Dean, there seems to be a real calculation to avoid losing. Consequently, he may wind up losing a part of himself in the process. I see this as a general tendency among most politicians, by the way, not just Dean.
But our politicians reflect fundamental truths about ourselves. Is it that Kucinich is unelectable, or is it that we are unwilling to confront the difficult issues with much needed candor and hard work? Makes life more complex to do that.
Regarding certain points of your argument, what forum would you suggest for Kucinich's letter to Cheney? Tompaine.commonsense seems like a pretty good one given that the media is not likely to print such a letter. Kucinich has been speaking out tirelessly on the issue of faulty intelligence, by the way, whenever possible, in speeches to the general public and before Congress.
Yes, Bush is idealogical and confrontational, and also a pathological liar. He can never give specifics as to the nature or reasons for his beliefs, because he has to keep those secret. Kucinich is not shy about sharing specifics. You say Kucinich doesn't know craftiness or diplomacy, though the two traits seem mutually exclusive. He is a member of the House of Representatives with an excellent reputation. I haven't followed all of the battles and legislation that he is responsible for; I did though, see a very conservative House member defend Kucinich on TV, on one of his stances.
I really confused on this: "We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax."
Why do we need to charm them? What we need to do is expose them, their lies and corruption. Daschle and Gephardt and Kerry and all the rest tried to play the game their way, and we wound embroiled in a war that is a humanitarian disaster.
Please don't forget to send me your civil war essay. As always, I enjoy the exchange,
Betsy
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:33 AM |
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
