<$BlogRSDUrl$>

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.

# 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.


# 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.

# 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).

# 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.




# 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


# 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.


# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.


# posted by scorpiorising : 7:19 AM |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?