Eric Weiner writes about the almost complete takeover by the Europeans of our largest publishing houses. He throws in some sad data about the status of American book reading, and predicts that the last two major American publishers are soon to be gobbled up, perhaps by European conglomerates as well. His conclusion?
"...the U.S. commercial publishing industry is going the way of the Dodo bird."
February 13, 2006
February 12, 2006
The Vice President That Couldn't Shoot Straight
Dick Cheney shot a man today while hunting. No joke.
Instead of shooting the quail, he shot an attorney hunting with him. I wonder if the guy decides to sue whether Cheney will regard it as frivolous.
Poverty is Common, Press Coverage is Not
Former Senator John Edwards came to Vermont to give a keynote speech at the February 8, 2006 United Against Poverty conference, an all-day event attended by over 300 activists and professionals, held on the University of Vermont campus. The conference was organized by the City of Burlington, Democracy for America, AARP-Vermont, the University of Vermont Political Science Department, and State Senator Matt Dunne. I attended the conference with my wife, Rickey Gard Diamond, who was covering the conference for Vermont Woman magazine.
The subject of the entire day’s conference was poverty and how the American economy is hurting the middle class, and further crushing low-income and poor Americans in Vermont, and around the country.
Sadly, there was no significant local press coverage of the actual content of the conference and only a few stories about Edwards’ speech. This should concern anyone who cares about the quality of media reporting in this country. Here was a conference that provided exhaustive information about increasing poverty in the state of Vermont and the limited coverage concentrated on Edwards, his life, his wife’s health, his aspirations for the Presidency, along with a piddling amount regarding his concerns about poverty.
I don’t mean to take anything away from Edwards and his tireless work on behalf of the poor in America. He gave fine voice to what he describes as the greatest moral question that America faces. What disheartened was local media’s ignoring the astonishing realities of poverty in its own backyard. It’s as if poverty is something that happens someplace else, perhaps New Orleans. The three main speakers at the conference spent the entire morning telling us that poverty is more common in Vermont and every part of America than we’ve been told.
David A. Murphey, Senior Policy Analyst for the Vermont Agency of Human Services, told the conference the current definition of poverty is "outdated, unrealistic, and misleading," and has been for years. While the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a family of four is $20,000, he reported recent state data and research shows the livable wage for Vermont families of four with two wage earners is actually $52,666. His Vermont caseload data suggest that poverty is increasing, that housing costs and demands are reaching a critical stage, and that there is a deepening divide between the haves and have-nots in the state. Most recent food stamp usage among children is up, and food shelf and community kitchen use is also up. Most tellingly, from1980 to the early 2000s, research shows that the top 5th of family incomes in Vermont rose by 72.3%, while the bottom 5th rose only by 27.3%.
Cornelius "Con" Hogan, Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Social Policy and former Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Human Services, reported that the rate of personal debt has increased by 36% in the last four years, that the personal savings rate of all Americans is at the lowest it has been since the Great Depression, that there has been an unrelenting rise in the cost of health care (a 45% increase between 2000 and 2003), and that half of all bankruptcies occur as a result of some family medical catatastrophe. Mr. Hogan made it clear that the increase of people in the poor and low-income categories is coming directly from the middle class. Profits are up, wages and income are down. The time bomb, in his words, is ticking.
Jane Knitzer, of Columbia University’s Center for Children in Poverty, told the conference the worst news – about America’s children. 18% of America’s children live in poverty. Six million live in extreme poverty. Responsible research has shown that it takes an average income at least twice the FPL (that lousy $20,000) to cover basic family expenses – more in urban areas. Ms. Knitzer reports that 40% of American children are growing up in low-income families. Shockingly, the data used to determine the poverty rate does not account for work-related expenses such as child care and transportation.
Our national government continues to refuse the use of reality-based standards for determining the actual poverty and low income levels in America, because it would substantially increase the number of Americans in trouble, and fly in the face of everything George Bush perpetually says about how healthy our economy is. The current numbers are fabrication and obfuscation. When Bush speaks about our "healthy economy," he is not including a huge number of Americans who have already fallen into the abyss, or who are on the edge looking down into yawning economic despair.
When Bush was elected, many conservatives were happy with his fundamentalist Christian views on a number of national issues. Many conservatives also thought that poverty would be, as Bush himself promised, a major focus of his Presidency. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Working on behalf of the automobile manufacturers, the government uses phony gas mileage standards for automobile gas efficiency, so buyers won’t know how really awful automobile gas mileage rates are. Likewise, our official governmental standards used to judge poverty rates and low income levels help hide from Americans how bad the economy really is for increasing numbers of us.
The more Americans feel the negative effects from the Bush policies of class warfare and corporate welfare, the more we can hope the American people will awaken to America’s economic injustices. We need an active, inquiring, and responsible media to help make that happen.
The subject of the entire day’s conference was poverty and how the American economy is hurting the middle class, and further crushing low-income and poor Americans in Vermont, and around the country.
Sadly, there was no significant local press coverage of the actual content of the conference and only a few stories about Edwards’ speech. This should concern anyone who cares about the quality of media reporting in this country. Here was a conference that provided exhaustive information about increasing poverty in the state of Vermont and the limited coverage concentrated on Edwards, his life, his wife’s health, his aspirations for the Presidency, along with a piddling amount regarding his concerns about poverty.
I don’t mean to take anything away from Edwards and his tireless work on behalf of the poor in America. He gave fine voice to what he describes as the greatest moral question that America faces. What disheartened was local media’s ignoring the astonishing realities of poverty in its own backyard. It’s as if poverty is something that happens someplace else, perhaps New Orleans. The three main speakers at the conference spent the entire morning telling us that poverty is more common in Vermont and every part of America than we’ve been told.
David A. Murphey, Senior Policy Analyst for the Vermont Agency of Human Services, told the conference the current definition of poverty is "outdated, unrealistic, and misleading," and has been for years. While the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a family of four is $20,000, he reported recent state data and research shows the livable wage for Vermont families of four with two wage earners is actually $52,666. His Vermont caseload data suggest that poverty is increasing, that housing costs and demands are reaching a critical stage, and that there is a deepening divide between the haves and have-nots in the state. Most recent food stamp usage among children is up, and food shelf and community kitchen use is also up. Most tellingly, from1980 to the early 2000s, research shows that the top 5th of family incomes in Vermont rose by 72.3%, while the bottom 5th rose only by 27.3%.
Cornelius "Con" Hogan, Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Social Policy and former Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Human Services, reported that the rate of personal debt has increased by 36% in the last four years, that the personal savings rate of all Americans is at the lowest it has been since the Great Depression, that there has been an unrelenting rise in the cost of health care (a 45% increase between 2000 and 2003), and that half of all bankruptcies occur as a result of some family medical catatastrophe. Mr. Hogan made it clear that the increase of people in the poor and low-income categories is coming directly from the middle class. Profits are up, wages and income are down. The time bomb, in his words, is ticking.
Jane Knitzer, of Columbia University’s Center for Children in Poverty, told the conference the worst news – about America’s children. 18% of America’s children live in poverty. Six million live in extreme poverty. Responsible research has shown that it takes an average income at least twice the FPL (that lousy $20,000) to cover basic family expenses – more in urban areas. Ms. Knitzer reports that 40% of American children are growing up in low-income families. Shockingly, the data used to determine the poverty rate does not account for work-related expenses such as child care and transportation.
Our national government continues to refuse the use of reality-based standards for determining the actual poverty and low income levels in America, because it would substantially increase the number of Americans in trouble, and fly in the face of everything George Bush perpetually says about how healthy our economy is. The current numbers are fabrication and obfuscation. When Bush speaks about our "healthy economy," he is not including a huge number of Americans who have already fallen into the abyss, or who are on the edge looking down into yawning economic despair.
When Bush was elected, many conservatives were happy with his fundamentalist Christian views on a number of national issues. Many conservatives also thought that poverty would be, as Bush himself promised, a major focus of his Presidency. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Working on behalf of the automobile manufacturers, the government uses phony gas mileage standards for automobile gas efficiency, so buyers won’t know how really awful automobile gas mileage rates are. Likewise, our official governmental standards used to judge poverty rates and low income levels help hide from Americans how bad the economy really is for increasing numbers of us.
The more Americans feel the negative effects from the Bush policies of class warfare and corporate welfare, the more we can hope the American people will awaken to America’s economic injustices. We need an active, inquiring, and responsible media to help make that happen.
The Unending List of Bush Administration Perfidy
Peter Daou (hat-tip to The Daily Doubter) has a long list of stories just from last week that enumerates yet more examples of perfidy by the Bush administration.
Read Daou's take on all this. It's enough to make you get even angrier.
Will the Bush & Co. pay the piper come November? Will these unending indictments of their honesty and competence eventually come home to roost? Perhaps not. It will take a press that is unshackled and free to unravel the Gordian knot of lies, deception and misdeeds. It will take an electorate that will not be stampeded by fear-mongering and the threat of terror by administration that hides behind national defense and national security to obfuscate and prevaricate away its sins of commission and omission. It will take a conscious, reasoned program from the Democrats to provide the alternative.
The torrent of stories about the Bush administration's perfidy, almost told by the press as asides on some theater stage, will have no effect unless we continue to shout, ceaselessly, the truth about the emperor having no clothes.
Read Daou's take on all this. It's enough to make you get even angrier.
Will the Bush & Co. pay the piper come November? Will these unending indictments of their honesty and competence eventually come home to roost? Perhaps not. It will take a press that is unshackled and free to unravel the Gordian knot of lies, deception and misdeeds. It will take an electorate that will not be stampeded by fear-mongering and the threat of terror by administration that hides behind national defense and national security to obfuscate and prevaricate away its sins of commission and omission. It will take a conscious, reasoned program from the Democrats to provide the alternative.
The torrent of stories about the Bush administration's perfidy, almost told by the press as asides on some theater stage, will have no effect unless we continue to shout, ceaselessly, the truth about the emperor having no clothes.
February 11, 2006
How Much Evidence is Enough Against Bush and Cheney?
According to The Washington Post, Paul R. Pillar, the senior CIA intelligence officer, with 28 years service, and who was responsible for coordinating all information on Iraq from 15 intelligence agencies, has written that the Bush administration misused intelligence in its drive to go to war in Iraq.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote
If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."
How much evidence is necessary to prove that Bush and Cheney lied their way to this war, have burdened America with an entirely unnecessary financial, military and human catastrophe, and have betrayed the American peoples' trust?
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote
If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."
How much evidence is necessary to prove that Bush and Cheney lied their way to this war, have burdened America with an entirely unnecessary financial, military and human catastrophe, and have betrayed the American peoples' trust?
South Dakota Lurches Backwards
The South Dakota House of Representatives has voted 57 -- 22 to make abortion illegal in an attempt to force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade and, hopefully, overturn it. The sponsors of the legislation hope that the two newly appointed justices will sway a court decision.
The bill would make it a class 5 felony, punishable by five years in prison, for anyone to perform an abortion in South Dakota. The legislation specifically exempts pregnant women who have abortions from any criminal charges. In 2000, there were only two abortion providers in the entire state of South Dakota. In that same year, there were 870 women who had abortions in South Dakota.
The anti-abortion sponsors of this bill were very smart targeting just two abortion providers in the state, instead of the 870 women who received abortions.
In effect, the South Dakota legislature is condemning hundreds of women who reside in South Dakota to find abortions elsewhere at significantly increased cost, or to find backroom abortion providers in-state. Poor and low income women will suffer the most if South Dakota is successful in forcing the overturn of Roe v Wade. They are the ones who can least afford to go out of state and who will be forced to find an unsafe and illegal source for an abortion. And what if it is the pregnant women herself who attempts to abort her pregnancy? Will she be exempt from criminal charges?
The South Dakota House of Representatives is attempting to yank hundreds of thousands of American women backwards into the dark ages of unsafe abortion mills, unqualified abortion providers, and unsafe decisions about their own health.
The bill would make it a class 5 felony, punishable by five years in prison, for anyone to perform an abortion in South Dakota. The legislation specifically exempts pregnant women who have abortions from any criminal charges. In 2000, there were only two abortion providers in the entire state of South Dakota. In that same year, there were 870 women who had abortions in South Dakota.
The anti-abortion sponsors of this bill were very smart targeting just two abortion providers in the state, instead of the 870 women who received abortions.
In effect, the South Dakota legislature is condemning hundreds of women who reside in South Dakota to find abortions elsewhere at significantly increased cost, or to find backroom abortion providers in-state. Poor and low income women will suffer the most if South Dakota is successful in forcing the overturn of Roe v Wade. They are the ones who can least afford to go out of state and who will be forced to find an unsafe and illegal source for an abortion. And what if it is the pregnant women herself who attempts to abort her pregnancy? Will she be exempt from criminal charges?
The South Dakota House of Representatives is attempting to yank hundreds of thousands of American women backwards into the dark ages of unsafe abortion mills, unqualified abortion providers, and unsafe decisions about their own health.
February 10, 2006
From One Boob to Another
I am pleased to offer you a critique of popular culture which first appeared in the Anniversary 2006 issue of Bitch Magazine -- you can also find a permanent link to this highly recommended magazine if you scroll down on the left here at Orwell's Grave. It is a beautifully written and very funny piece by Julie Pecoraro and serves as a real-life example of Orwellian Newspeak, the inversion of customary meaning. In this case, when Dr. Phil says he wants women "to embrace who they are," he really intends something quite different.
**********************************************
"This year, I am really focused on helping women to be at peace with their body, to embrace who they are and not be trying to measure themselves against these ridiculous stick figures that you see on billboards." And so Dr. Phil, America’s alleged favorite celebrity psychologist, began his fourth season last September amid noble promises of empowerment. By the end of the hour, he said, he hoped women across the country would grow into an acceptance of every bony nook or sagging cranny of their selves. And to drive home this ode to the Body God Gave You, Dr. Phil ended his show by giving away three free boob jobs.
He’s gotta compete with his former patron Oprah, after all. And perhaps due to this effort to match the queen of free stuff gift for gift, Phil’s season premiere was an ADD hour of anorexia, free sneakers, cruel mothers, free cell phones, Paula Abdul, free clothing, Bonnie Raitt, and free boobs.
The show could easily have been pointed in the general direction of poignant, nuanced discussion about our national obsession with physical perfection. Guests included an overweight teenage girl verbally abused by her mother, an anorexic woman who had dropped to 68 pounds, Paula Abdul discussing her battle with bulimia, and, yes, women unhappy with their breasts. But given that the show began with a thousand women dressed in t-shirts that declared their bodily flaws, such as "THUNDER THIGHS" and "JELLY BELLY," rah-rah-ing to every word that bounced from Dr. Phil’s mouth, it was evident that poignant and nuanced was not the intention. With no more than 10 minutes devoted to each guest, it’s no wonder that Dr. Phil never got beyond clichés. But even if he hadn’t said anything new, the message of the show would have been mostly positive – if not empowering, at least not harmful. Then came the breasts.
Viewers met three women whose only complaint in otherwise rosy lives was that their breasts were not what they wanted them to be. One woman had too little. One, after losing 60 pounds, had too much. And one would have had just enough, if it weren’t for the breastfed kiddies. We might have expected Dr. Phil to adhere to his own advice – that a person’s confidence should come from what’s inside of, not hanging off of, said person. Instead, he gave each woman 30 seconds to make her case, stating that if he thought their cause a worthy one he’d send them to a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon free of charge. And apparently they gave such good arguments that Dr. Phil, being the crunchy-on-the-outside-gooey-on-the-inside guy that he is, gave them each a new set of hooters, much to the jubilation of the audience. I’m assuming that there were extensive pre-interviews and that Dr. Phil spent more than 30 seconds listening to the women before giving the gift of saline. But all we saw was Phil declaring that there are right reasons and wrong reasons to surgically alter one’s appearance. (The woman would have been wrong, presumably, to claim that new breasts would make them better people, or change their personality.) Missing from this chat was any discussion, or even mention, of the dangers that come with breast implants. Augmentation was taken as an undeniable good that, if done for the "right" reasons, should be done.
Despite the obvious irony inherent in ending a show about self-esteem with a father-knows-best edict and free grab bags of plastic surgery, most depressing was that there was no hint of possibility that the desire for breast implants might not be adequately explained away by a glib "I want to do this for myself." Might this desire be, at bottom, the result of others’ expectations, the very external standards from which Dr. Phil wants to free us?
As Oprah’s talk-show heir, Dr. Phil has the eyes and ears of millions of women and could easily introduce true critical insight and debate into the discussion. Instead, one minute he disapproves of the fact that "we are a nation that is obsessed with being thin and perfect," and the next he plays into that very obsession, playing fairy godfather to the self-proclaimed "mammary-challenged." Instead of offering some enlightenment on body-image issues, this was just another makeover show substituting surgery for critical discussion, promising superficial fixes for a massive systemic problem.
Okay, Dr. Phil, how’s that workin’ for ya?
[Reprinted with permission of the author who reserves all rights]
**********************************************
"This year, I am really focused on helping women to be at peace with their body, to embrace who they are and not be trying to measure themselves against these ridiculous stick figures that you see on billboards." And so Dr. Phil, America’s alleged favorite celebrity psychologist, began his fourth season last September amid noble promises of empowerment. By the end of the hour, he said, he hoped women across the country would grow into an acceptance of every bony nook or sagging cranny of their selves. And to drive home this ode to the Body God Gave You, Dr. Phil ended his show by giving away three free boob jobs.
He’s gotta compete with his former patron Oprah, after all. And perhaps due to this effort to match the queen of free stuff gift for gift, Phil’s season premiere was an ADD hour of anorexia, free sneakers, cruel mothers, free cell phones, Paula Abdul, free clothing, Bonnie Raitt, and free boobs.
The show could easily have been pointed in the general direction of poignant, nuanced discussion about our national obsession with physical perfection. Guests included an overweight teenage girl verbally abused by her mother, an anorexic woman who had dropped to 68 pounds, Paula Abdul discussing her battle with bulimia, and, yes, women unhappy with their breasts. But given that the show began with a thousand women dressed in t-shirts that declared their bodily flaws, such as "THUNDER THIGHS" and "JELLY BELLY," rah-rah-ing to every word that bounced from Dr. Phil’s mouth, it was evident that poignant and nuanced was not the intention. With no more than 10 minutes devoted to each guest, it’s no wonder that Dr. Phil never got beyond clichés. But even if he hadn’t said anything new, the message of the show would have been mostly positive – if not empowering, at least not harmful. Then came the breasts.
Viewers met three women whose only complaint in otherwise rosy lives was that their breasts were not what they wanted them to be. One woman had too little. One, after losing 60 pounds, had too much. And one would have had just enough, if it weren’t for the breastfed kiddies. We might have expected Dr. Phil to adhere to his own advice – that a person’s confidence should come from what’s inside of, not hanging off of, said person. Instead, he gave each woman 30 seconds to make her case, stating that if he thought their cause a worthy one he’d send them to a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon free of charge. And apparently they gave such good arguments that Dr. Phil, being the crunchy-on-the-outside-gooey-on-the-inside guy that he is, gave them each a new set of hooters, much to the jubilation of the audience. I’m assuming that there were extensive pre-interviews and that Dr. Phil spent more than 30 seconds listening to the women before giving the gift of saline. But all we saw was Phil declaring that there are right reasons and wrong reasons to surgically alter one’s appearance. (The woman would have been wrong, presumably, to claim that new breasts would make them better people, or change their personality.) Missing from this chat was any discussion, or even mention, of the dangers that come with breast implants. Augmentation was taken as an undeniable good that, if done for the "right" reasons, should be done.
Despite the obvious irony inherent in ending a show about self-esteem with a father-knows-best edict and free grab bags of plastic surgery, most depressing was that there was no hint of possibility that the desire for breast implants might not be adequately explained away by a glib "I want to do this for myself." Might this desire be, at bottom, the result of others’ expectations, the very external standards from which Dr. Phil wants to free us?
As Oprah’s talk-show heir, Dr. Phil has the eyes and ears of millions of women and could easily introduce true critical insight and debate into the discussion. Instead, one minute he disapproves of the fact that "we are a nation that is obsessed with being thin and perfect," and the next he plays into that very obsession, playing fairy godfather to the self-proclaimed "mammary-challenged." Instead of offering some enlightenment on body-image issues, this was just another makeover show substituting surgery for critical discussion, promising superficial fixes for a massive systemic problem.
Okay, Dr. Phil, how’s that workin’ for ya?
[Reprinted with permission of the author who reserves all rights]
Greenspan's Fraud
In response to my earlier piece about Alan Greenspan's retirement and the poll ABC News did that resulted in his being the most popular human in the universe, I have been asked what Alan Greenspan did besides set interest rates and how can we blame him for America's economic ills. It's an excellent question.
It is true that the activities of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank are not well known among Americans. It is in the best interest of the political and economic power brokers of America's ruling class to keep his activities and influence as murky and cloudy as possible. The general public gets its pat on the head every three months when the only really public thing he does (covered religiously and with awe by the press) is set interest rates. If this was the only thing the Fed Chairman does, it would still be a hugely signifant act. But he does so much more, and the impact has been wonderfully rewarding for certain sectors of the American economy, and really destructive to middle-class, low-income and poor Americans. By way of answering the question about Greenspan, what he does and why it's not good for us, here is a short section from the end of an excellent review by Thom Hartmann of the book, Greenspan's Fraud, written by Ravi Batra.
Read the first part of Hartmann's review, it explains even more about how we have evolved economically and to the detriment of the middle class since 1981.
******************************************
...Greenspan has steadily worked for over two decades to sell out America's sovereignty and economic interests to those of the multinational corporations he so loves, and to sell out the working people of America (and their Social Security Trust Fund) to the super-rich who Greenspan has always represented.
Greenspan manipulated the stock market so his buddies could get rich, then warned them just in time to get out before it blew up. He's kept together tax cuts and pay increases for the CEO class by pumping cheap money into the economy so the Middle Class will go ever deeper into debt, setting up a housing bubble that could crash in a way that would make 1929 look like a mild bump in the economic road. And he's helped engineer and support international "free" trade policies that have disemboweled America's manufacturing and information technology sectors, with the happy result for Republicans that the once-politically-active and heavily unionized middle class is being replaced by a politically impotent mass of the working poor, too busy to worry about politics or challenge corporate news.
Most people, coming across this massive indictment of Greenspan, would probably react with skepticism. Why wasn't any of this in the paper? Why haven't I heard Democrats and liberals attacking Greenspan from the floors of Congress and in the progressive media?
As Batra points out, the truest testament to the power Alan Greenspan holds is that he's been able to do so much of this behind the scenes. He gently encourages and nudges, argues and lectures, leaks and pontificates. He suggests, rather than orders. And, of course, he holds the levers of the nation's money supply in his hands - making him a more fearsome threat to a sitting president or political party than J. Edgar Hoover ever was.
And, Batra documents, Greenspan has not been at all reluctant to use his considerable power to the benefit of those in office.
One example: During the Reagan and Bush presidencies, he was in favor of tax cuts. During Clinton's he was against them. During Bush Junior's he was again in favor of them.
Ravi Batra's book "Greenspan's Fraud" is not only required reading for all Americans because it so clearly lays out the crimes this man - and the Republican Party - have committed against the United States of America, but also because it's such a brilliant primer in macroeconomics overall. If you never were able to figure out, for example, what interest rates had to do with unemployment, or how the rich get richer in America while the poor get poorer, or why when the minimum wage is increased the economy gets better, Batra explains it all with elegance, wit, and comfortable clarity.
"Greenspan's Fraud" is one of the most important books you can read this year. Get two copies, because you're sure to have at least one friend you'll want to read this book, but your own copy will be so marked up and beloved that you'll not want to let go of it.
---> GET YOUR COPY HERE <--- * * * Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. http://www.thomhartmann.com/commondreams.shtml His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."
It is true that the activities of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank are not well known among Americans. It is in the best interest of the political and economic power brokers of America's ruling class to keep his activities and influence as murky and cloudy as possible. The general public gets its pat on the head every three months when the only really public thing he does (covered religiously and with awe by the press) is set interest rates. If this was the only thing the Fed Chairman does, it would still be a hugely signifant act. But he does so much more, and the impact has been wonderfully rewarding for certain sectors of the American economy, and really destructive to middle-class, low-income and poor Americans. By way of answering the question about Greenspan, what he does and why it's not good for us, here is a short section from the end of an excellent review by Thom Hartmann of the book, Greenspan's Fraud, written by Ravi Batra.
Read the first part of Hartmann's review, it explains even more about how we have evolved economically and to the detriment of the middle class since 1981.
******************************************
...Greenspan has steadily worked for over two decades to sell out America's sovereignty and economic interests to those of the multinational corporations he so loves, and to sell out the working people of America (and their Social Security Trust Fund) to the super-rich who Greenspan has always represented.
Greenspan manipulated the stock market so his buddies could get rich, then warned them just in time to get out before it blew up. He's kept together tax cuts and pay increases for the CEO class by pumping cheap money into the economy so the Middle Class will go ever deeper into debt, setting up a housing bubble that could crash in a way that would make 1929 look like a mild bump in the economic road. And he's helped engineer and support international "free" trade policies that have disemboweled America's manufacturing and information technology sectors, with the happy result for Republicans that the once-politically-active and heavily unionized middle class is being replaced by a politically impotent mass of the working poor, too busy to worry about politics or challenge corporate news.
Most people, coming across this massive indictment of Greenspan, would probably react with skepticism. Why wasn't any of this in the paper? Why haven't I heard Democrats and liberals attacking Greenspan from the floors of Congress and in the progressive media?
As Batra points out, the truest testament to the power Alan Greenspan holds is that he's been able to do so much of this behind the scenes. He gently encourages and nudges, argues and lectures, leaks and pontificates. He suggests, rather than orders. And, of course, he holds the levers of the nation's money supply in his hands - making him a more fearsome threat to a sitting president or political party than J. Edgar Hoover ever was.
And, Batra documents, Greenspan has not been at all reluctant to use his considerable power to the benefit of those in office.
One example: During the Reagan and Bush presidencies, he was in favor of tax cuts. During Clinton's he was against them. During Bush Junior's he was again in favor of them.
Ravi Batra's book "Greenspan's Fraud" is not only required reading for all Americans because it so clearly lays out the crimes this man - and the Republican Party - have committed against the United States of America, but also because it's such a brilliant primer in macroeconomics overall. If you never were able to figure out, for example, what interest rates had to do with unemployment, or how the rich get richer in America while the poor get poorer, or why when the minimum wage is increased the economy gets better, Batra explains it all with elegance, wit, and comfortable clarity.
"Greenspan's Fraud" is one of the most important books you can read this year. Get two copies, because you're sure to have at least one friend you'll want to read this book, but your own copy will be so marked up and beloved that you'll not want to let go of it.
---> GET YOUR COPY HERE <--- * * * Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. http://www.thomhartmann.com/commondreams.shtml His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."
February 09, 2006
The Image of Islam vs the Image of Muhammad
Isn't this is the image of Islam that Islam ought not to tolerate and should be demonstrating against?
Using the Holocaust against the Jewish people (not to mention most anyone else who the Nazis would not tolerate) as a model for reaction and anger, this woman (perhaps it is a man?) warns the West of the coming of the real Holocaust.
Can it be that this sign is born only of reaction to the cartoons? Or was this sign born of something much deeper, much more consequential and deadly?
Ask yourself what kind of belief it takes for someone to write a sign like this.
Soldier Must Pay for His Body Armor After Being Wounded
Here's a story that just makes you scratch your head.
A West Point graduate, wounded in Iraq, upon his discharge back in the USA, is asked where his body armor is and tells the Army that it was destroyed in Iraq when he was wounded. Because he cannot prove what happened to the body armor, he is not allowed to be honorably discharged until he waits for a Report of Survey to be completed (which could have taken a week or a month) or he pays $700 for the missing body armor. Because he wanted to go home and did not want to wait, the soldier was forced to pay the money.
I imagine that soldiers wounded in battle are not thinking about what is happening to their body armor as it is being taken off their bodies (or has been blown off their bodies) so that when the time comes they can tell some pencil pusher what happened to it. I understand each soldier is responsible for his or her gear, but this is ridiculous. That some officer stateside could not simply have signed a waiver in this case is inexcusable.
A West Point graduate, wounded in Iraq, upon his discharge back in the USA, is asked where his body armor is and tells the Army that it was destroyed in Iraq when he was wounded. Because he cannot prove what happened to the body armor, he is not allowed to be honorably discharged until he waits for a Report of Survey to be completed (which could have taken a week or a month) or he pays $700 for the missing body armor. Because he wanted to go home and did not want to wait, the soldier was forced to pay the money.
I imagine that soldiers wounded in battle are not thinking about what is happening to their body armor as it is being taken off their bodies (or has been blown off their bodies) so that when the time comes they can tell some pencil pusher what happened to it. I understand each soldier is responsible for his or her gear, but this is ridiculous. That some officer stateside could not simply have signed a waiver in this case is inexcusable.
February 08, 2006
The Next Terrorist Attack a la Dick Cheney
When the next major terrorist attack hits America, either on our shores or abroad, it is going to be our fault.
Whose fault precisely?
Well, it will be John Murtha's fault for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It will be the fault of Common Dreams, and Buzzflash, and AmericaBlog, and AlterNet. It will be the fault of Mother Jones, The Progressive, The Nation, and The American Prospect.
Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd, and Arianna Huffington will be held up as traitors.
It will also somehow be Hillary Clinton's fault despite her wishy-washy support of the continuing Iraq war.
Certainly John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and Jimmy Carter will be held to blame.
It will be the fault of the New York Times and anyone else who supposedly leaked information about the NSA surveillance program.
Literally, anyone who has criticized the Bush administration's war in Iraq and its foreign policy will be held to blame.
Vice President Dick Cheney, just yesterday, reminds us in his television interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS's The News Hour that another major attack along the lines of 9/11 has not come because of this administration's superb work in defending Americans. But Cheney warns, menacingly, that all bets are off now because the administration never intended any information about the NSA's surveillance program to get out and the very fact that it did has been damaging to America's security. Without providing one shred of evidence, he claims that thousands of lives have been saved because of the program. Cheney then says:
This program has been an important part of that intelligence capability. And as I said, the tragedy is, now that it has become the subject of so much discussion in the press and in the public arena that there is a real danger here that we will lose our capabilities in this area and will not have the kind of intelligence going forward that we've had in the past that has made it possible for us to successfully defend the nation against terrorist attacks. It doesn't mean there won't be future attacks. There may well be.
It's a curiously elliptical way of Cheney saying: "we were able to defend you, fellow Americans, but now because these bad people are talking about what we are doing to defend you, which I remind you has been working, it might not work anymore, because we may get attacked anyway because, even while the program was underway and NOT being talked about, we might have been attacked anyway, but now we may well be attacked because it IS being talked about."
The entire thrust of Cheney's position is one of covering his ass while at the same time, a priori, placing the blame for whatever happens squarely on his opponents and critics. Certainly don't expect from him any kind of accountability, responsibility, or self-examination.
Whose fault precisely?
Well, it will be John Murtha's fault for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It will be the fault of Common Dreams, and Buzzflash, and AmericaBlog, and AlterNet. It will be the fault of Mother Jones, The Progressive, The Nation, and The American Prospect.
Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd, and Arianna Huffington will be held up as traitors.
It will also somehow be Hillary Clinton's fault despite her wishy-washy support of the continuing Iraq war.
Certainly John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and Jimmy Carter will be held to blame.
It will be the fault of the New York Times and anyone else who supposedly leaked information about the NSA surveillance program.
Literally, anyone who has criticized the Bush administration's war in Iraq and its foreign policy will be held to blame.
Vice President Dick Cheney, just yesterday, reminds us in his television interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS's The News Hour that another major attack along the lines of 9/11 has not come because of this administration's superb work in defending Americans. But Cheney warns, menacingly, that all bets are off now because the administration never intended any information about the NSA's surveillance program to get out and the very fact that it did has been damaging to America's security. Without providing one shred of evidence, he claims that thousands of lives have been saved because of the program. Cheney then says:
This program has been an important part of that intelligence capability. And as I said, the tragedy is, now that it has become the subject of so much discussion in the press and in the public arena that there is a real danger here that we will lose our capabilities in this area and will not have the kind of intelligence going forward that we've had in the past that has made it possible for us to successfully defend the nation against terrorist attacks. It doesn't mean there won't be future attacks. There may well be.
It's a curiously elliptical way of Cheney saying: "we were able to defend you, fellow Americans, but now because these bad people are talking about what we are doing to defend you, which I remind you has been working, it might not work anymore, because we may get attacked anyway because, even while the program was underway and NOT being talked about, we might have been attacked anyway, but now we may well be attacked because it IS being talked about."
The entire thrust of Cheney's position is one of covering his ass while at the same time, a priori, placing the blame for whatever happens squarely on his opponents and critics. Certainly don't expect from him any kind of accountability, responsibility, or self-examination.
February 07, 2006
Merck: Profits First, Patients Second
Merck is administering a major public relations antidote in the form of a new advertising campaign, just in time for a new lawsuit against Merck claiming that its painkiller, Vioxx, caused someone to die, and that Merck rushed Vioxx to market even though it knew it wasn't safe,
Have you seen the ads? I know they have been around for a few months. But here's the slogan:
"Merck. Where Patients Come First."
In a story in the NY Times entitled "A Drug Maker's Ads, Hold the Disclaimer," here's what one brand and customer-loyalty consultant, Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys in New York, said about the Merck campaign: "a great idea" because "the castle has been under siege for a long, long time..."Merck would be wise to make sure it has more friends than disgruntled patients," Mr. Passikoff said. "Ultimately, you're better off having a tighter emotional bond to your customer base."
What a concept. It's better to have more friends than disguntled patients. I bet this guy gets paid alot of money to come up with these kernels of wisdom.
Here is John Mack, editor and publisher of Pharma Marketing News talking about the Merck Vioxx scandal:
When Merck pulled Vioxx off the market I admired the company's courage to do the "right thing" by putting people's lives before profits. The decision was widely applauded -- except on Wall Street where Merck immediately lost 27% of its market value.
A few days later it was revealed that Merck may have known about Vioxx's cardiovascular side effect problems for years and tried very hard to conceal the evidence and block any action by the FDA. While this was going on an estimated 27,000 people suffered heart attacks and who knows how many strokes possibly due to Vioxx!
If this obstructionism by Merck is true, then someone should pay. While Merck's CEO may get his golden parachute sooner than planned, the small Merck stock and mutual fund investor is really being punished-Merck's stock has lost about 40% of its market value since the withdrawal of Vioxx.
In the final analysis, the Merck ad is basically a lie, because as a corporation, profits always come first. Patients and customers always come second. The purpose of a corporation is to make as much money as possible, to provide the largest return to its shareholders as possible. If, in the process, it brings something its patients or customers want or need, then so be it.
The ad campaign is simply a response to bad press Merck has been receiving because of Vioxx. It has come out with a reality-altering advertising sedative to soothe public opinion.
Can we blame Merck for wanting to improve its image? Of course not. Can we let Merck fool us? I hope not.
The Progress & Freedom Foundation -- The Internet's Worst Enemy
The Progress & Freedom Foundation is not about progress or freedom. If it weren't so insidious an organization, the name would be a funny example of jabberwocky at its best.
It is an organization of corporations that does not have the interests of progress or freedom at its core. What it does have is self-interest, motivated by greed and profit.
One of the primary purposes of the Progress & Freedom Foundation is to take corporate control of the internet. Its first goal is described this way: "Deregulation of communications markets, including immediate deregulation of broadband services, and forbearance from regulation of wireless communications and the Internet."
The other anti-progress and anti-freedom goals are described here.
It is an organization of corporations that does not have the interests of progress or freedom at its core. What it does have is self-interest, motivated by greed and profit.
One of the primary purposes of the Progress & Freedom Foundation is to take corporate control of the internet. Its first goal is described this way: "Deregulation of communications markets, including immediate deregulation of broadband services, and forbearance from regulation of wireless communications and the Internet."
The other anti-progress and anti-freedom goals are described here.
Supporters of The Progress & Freedom Foundation include -
Apple; AT&T; BellSouth; BMG; Business Software Alliance; Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association; Cisco; Clear Channel Communications; Comcast Corporation; CompTIA; Disney; eBay; EchoStar Communications Corporation; Edison Electric Institute; EMI Group; FirstEnergy; Google; Hewlett-Packard Company; Howrey LLP; Intel; Intellectual Ventures; Intuit; Level 3 Communications; MCI; MGM; Microsoft; Motorola; National Cable & Telecommunications Association; NBC Universal; Nextel Communications; Nortel; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Progress Energy; QUALCOMM Incorporated; Qwest Communications; Sony Music Entertainment Inc.; Southern Company; Sprint; Sun Microsystems; Sybase, Inc.; Symantec Corporation; Telecommunications Industry Association; The News Corporation Limited; The SABRE Group; Time Warner; T-Mobile; VeriSign, Inc.; Verizon Communications; VIACOM; Visa USA; Vivendi; Winstar; Xcel Energy; XM Satellite Radio.
These corporations are not the friends of progress and freedom. They certainly are not the friends of a free and unfettered internet. They are voracious capitalist carnivores who see in the internet only one thing -- an enormous profit-center which they are working ceaselessly to own and operate. It would be progress for them if they were able take control freely of this huge potential.
In their own words, "For ten years, from the beginning of the Internet Revolution in 1993, through the high-tech meltdown of 2000-2002 and beyond, PFF has been a consistent voice for a market-oriented approach to capturing the opportunities presented by technological progress."
Reminiscent of many Politburo and KGB front organizations, they make up a name that represents the exact opposite of their strategy and purposes.
What PFF names itself and what it stands for is a classic example of Orwellian doublethink -- namely, holding two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time. In this case, PFF believes that its desire to dominate the internet is progress and will set us all free. Its compulsion, however, to own the internet is the irresistible force against which progress and freedom crash.
For a fuller discussion of the threat to the internet, read "The End of the Internet"
By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation (thanks to AlterNet for the link)
February 06, 2006
Muslim Reaction to the Cartoons
One significant belief of Islam precludes any drawing or image of the prophet Muhammad. When newspapers in Denmark published a series of cartoons caricaturing the prophet Muhammad - including one of the Prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb -- and then were reprinted in other European papers, it set off a bomb of reaction that is continuing to reverberate around the world. The reaction to the cartoons, among most Muslims, has been one of outrage; among some, of actual violence.
Could it be that the highly publicized Muslim reactions to the cartoons are proving the point many are making about Islam, democracy, and freedom? Some might even say they are proving the point of the cartoons themselves.
The point which critics of Islam make is that because there is no separation of church and state anywhere in the Muslim world, there is, therefore, a fatal conflict between the religion of Islam and the adoption of democratic, pluralistic ideals and practices. This may be an arguable point, but it is a troubling one we all grapple with when we witness Islamic governments trying to develop semblances of democratic processes (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Palestinian territories) while being held strictly to Islamic interpretations of law. Holding elections, alone, does not a democracy make.
The violent reactions also reveal a male-dominated response that is a microcosm of one of the largest problems besetting the Moslem world -- tens of millions of unemployed, underemployed, uneducated, and undereducated males in religious societies which define the male's hegemony as complete and unchallenged. These young men (and most of them are young) live in or come from nation-states where Islam is the religion of the state, where government laws and government actions are defined only insofar as they adhere to religious law, and where men dominate in every sphere of society. A poisonous form of Islamist fundamentalism has taken hold in many of these societies, a fundamentalism which is drowning out more moderate Muslims.
In what is, perhaps, one of the most telling pictures of the reaction to the cartoons, a young Muslim man at a London demonstration holds a sign that says: "Freedom Go to Hell." That one sign just might encapsulate the problem. There he is, living in a pluralistic, liberal democracy and he condemns freedom. Is it perhaps that his idea of freedom is different from ours? Another sign says: "Europe You Will Pay, Your 3/11 is On Its Way." Insult our religion, and you will die.
It is good that spokesmen for Islamic organizations are speaking out against these kinds of radical statements, but just how deep do these sentiments actually go among Muslims in general? There is, in fact, a deep well of resentment against the West, reflected clearly in the shallow sympathy for 9/11 and 3/11.
America's so-called war on terror has contributed substantially to this Muslim view. It has hardened opinions in the Muslim world against us. To many of them, the war on terror consists of a war on Muslims, exclusively fought in Muslim countries. Significant portions of the Arab media characterize America's response as a crusade, further contributing to this viewpoint.
It should be noted, however, that the Muslim reaction to secularism and liberalism long pre-dates 9/11 and the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, attacks on secularism and liberalism within the Muslim world itself have been persistent -- Salman Rushdie condemned for his novel The Satanic Verses; Egyptian Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz almost killed for allegedly insulting Islam in one of his novels; and Farag Fouda, another Egyptian writer, assassinated for his warnings about the Taliban and Al-Queda. There are many, many examples of Muslims speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism and being assassinated or repressed.
Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East is on the rise. The oppression of Islam by Western ideals and armies (and cartoons) is fueling this surge of reaction, in Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Syria, and other parts of the Muslim world. In the New York Times on February 4, Michael Slackman writes: "...with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bashing the United States and Europe, calling for Israel to be wiped off the map and claiming that the Holocaust is a myth, many people from taxi drivers in Morocco to street sweepers in Cairo are saying that they like the man and his vision."
Maybe the most telling question about this entire controversy was asked by Jihad Momami, the Jordanian editor who was arrested for violating Jordanian law (which is consistent with Islamic law) by publishing one of the cartoons in his weekly paper Shihan:
"Muslims of the world be reasonable...What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures, or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"
Fundamentalist Islam is framing this battle with the West and, so far, winning. For all the protestations of George Bush to the contrary, our interventions, our "freedom," our democracy, our cartoons -- these are daggers to the heart of fundamentalist Islam.
*******************************************
You can read here a Declaration of the Rights of Women in Islamic Societies.
If you want to read more about secularism among Islamic writers, here's an essay Ghassan F. Abdullah.
ABC News Gives Greenspan A Retirement Gift
According to a recent ABC News poll, over 70% of Americans have approved of the way Alan Greenspan has performed in his job as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank over the last 18 years.I hope I don't sound too cynical here, but do even 10% of Americans know what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank does?
ABC goes on to explain:
There is a gap: Republicans are 18 points more apt than Democrats to approve of Greenspan's performance. But that compares with a 72-point partisan split in assessments of Bush's work in office (84 percent of Republicans approve, versus 12 percent of Democrats.)
An equally striking achievement for Greenspan is the fact that his approval is so high even while 60 percent of Americans rate the national economy negatively. Among those who say it's in bad shape, 55 percent nonetheless approve of the job he's done as Fed chairman. And among those who say the economy's in good shape, far more — 84 percent — approve. (Just 46 percent approve of how Bush is handling the economy, possible proof that politics is just plain unfair.)
Unfair? Maybe a little crazy-making, but unfair? 60% of Americans think the economy stinks, but over 70% think Greenspan has done a good job?So who conducted this poll, anyway?
Here's the answer. The poll was conducted by a company, called TNS, that serves corporations through its marketing survey services. Here is how TNS describes itself:
At TNS we have an extensive global reach, operating out of 70 countries worldwide. This allows us to provide market measurement, analysis, insight and consultancy to both national and multinational companies. We help our clients develop effective business strategies and communications which, in turn, helps them enhance their relationships with their customers.
Can you imagine how TNS got the results of this poll? What did it do, send out some people to the corporate board rooms of banks, credit card companies, and oil companies and ask them whether they though Alan Greenspan had done a good job these last 18 years?
Here's a company dedicated to making up the best stories and images it can about its corporate clients' products and brands, and it is the one company ABC News partners with to conduct this poll. I wonder how much work TNS has done to burnish ABC's brand?
The paragraph below is from the blurb describing the book Greenspan's Fraud.
For two decades Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has held reign over economic policy, outlasting three presidents. His long tenure has had a profound effect on global economics and on individuals. In this hard-hitting exposé, international bestselling author Ravi Batra takes sharp aim at Greenspan's policies since he came into power. Greenomics, Batra argues, has extracted trillions of dollars from the American middle class and sharply benefited the rich, while protecting big business [emphasis added]. Batra proves that Greenomics has also been responsible for periods of irrational exuberance, and exposes the wild inconsistencies in his social security plans. Greenspan's Fraud explores Greenspan's influences and motivations and the discrepancies between his words and actions, while revealing how his policies have national and global impact.
Probably the best way to look at this ABC News poll is as a retirement gift from one of Greenspan's many corporate beneficiaries.
February 05, 2006
Bush's Isolationism Boogeyman
When I watched Bush give his State of the Union address, and he warned America about the isolationists who represent "retreat," it was clear what he was doing. He wants to paint all of his opposition the terms of surrender. Bush is the Minister of Truth, creating out of whole cloth, a "statement of fact" that is simply a lie. He then feeds it to the masses with the intended effect of debasing and discrediting any opposing viewpoints.
Andrew J. Bacevich explains it well in the Los Angeles Times:
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush worked himself into a lather about the dangers of "retreating within our borders." His speech bulged with ominous references to ostensibly resurgent isolationists hankering to "tie our hands" and leave "an assaulted world to fend for itself." Turning inward, the president cautioned, would provide "false comfort" because isolationism inevitably "ends in danger and decline."
But who exactly are these isolationists eager to pull up the drawbridges? What party do they control? What influential journals of opinion do they publish? Who are their leaders? Which foundations bankroll this isolationist cause? The president provided no such details, and for good reason: They do not exist.
Indeed, in present-day American politics, isolationism does not exist. It is a fiction, a fabrication and a smear imported from another era. Isolationism survives in contemporary American political discourse because it retains utility as a cheap device employed to impose discipline. Think of it as akin to red-baiting -- conjuring up bogus fears to enforce conformity in the realm of foreign policy. In that regard, the beleaguered Bush, his standing in public opinion polls tumbling, is by no means the first president to sound the alarm about supposed isolationists subverting American statecraft.
Andrew J. Bacevich explains it well in the Los Angeles Times:
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush worked himself into a lather about the dangers of "retreating within our borders." His speech bulged with ominous references to ostensibly resurgent isolationists hankering to "tie our hands" and leave "an assaulted world to fend for itself." Turning inward, the president cautioned, would provide "false comfort" because isolationism inevitably "ends in danger and decline."
But who exactly are these isolationists eager to pull up the drawbridges? What party do they control? What influential journals of opinion do they publish? Who are their leaders? Which foundations bankroll this isolationist cause? The president provided no such details, and for good reason: They do not exist.
Indeed, in present-day American politics, isolationism does not exist. It is a fiction, a fabrication and a smear imported from another era. Isolationism survives in contemporary American political discourse because it retains utility as a cheap device employed to impose discipline. Think of it as akin to red-baiting -- conjuring up bogus fears to enforce conformity in the realm of foreign policy. In that regard, the beleaguered Bush, his standing in public opinion polls tumbling, is by no means the first president to sound the alarm about supposed isolationists subverting American statecraft.
Bono to Bush -- There's a Difference Between Charity and Justice
If ever there was a contrast in moral words and action, it was evident at the recent National Prayer breakfast attended by George Bush, where rock star Bono of U2 spoke for a little over 21 minutes about the difference between charity and justice.
In what were probably the strongest, most pointed, and yet, gentlest words George Bush has ever heard on the subject, Bono chastised him for simply not doing enough to help the poor, especially in Africa. He thanked Bush for his charity toward the poor, but he described the huge chasm that exists between what the poor actually need and what our response actually has been. He distinguished between the limits of charity and the need for real justice.
Here is what Bono asks Bush for:
"America gives less than 1% now.
We're asking for an extra 1% to change the world--to transform millions of lives - but not just that and I say this to the military men now - to transform the way that they see us.
1% is national security, enlightened economic self-interest, and a better, safer world rolled into one."
It is well worth reading or watching Bono's speech. Forget about religion, just take in his words from a humanitarian point of view. As humans, we cannot afford to continue down this path that ignores justice for the world's poor. It leads to disaster for us all.
You can read Bono's words at the link to Larry James site above, or follow the link Larry James has on his front page to the video of Bono's speech at CNN.
In what were probably the strongest, most pointed, and yet, gentlest words George Bush has ever heard on the subject, Bono chastised him for simply not doing enough to help the poor, especially in Africa. He thanked Bush for his charity toward the poor, but he described the huge chasm that exists between what the poor actually need and what our response actually has been. He distinguished between the limits of charity and the need for real justice.
Here is what Bono asks Bush for:
"America gives less than 1% now.
We're asking for an extra 1% to change the world--to transform millions of lives - but not just that and I say this to the military men now - to transform the way that they see us.
1% is national security, enlightened economic self-interest, and a better, safer world rolled into one."
It is well worth reading or watching Bono's speech. Forget about religion, just take in his words from a humanitarian point of view. As humans, we cannot afford to continue down this path that ignores justice for the world's poor. It leads to disaster for us all.
You can read Bono's words at the link to Larry James site above, or follow the link Larry James has on his front page to the video of Bono's speech at CNN.
February 03, 2006
I Love My President Because....
Kvatch over at Blognonymous has a fun little contest going on all weekend where you can fill in the blank to the following:
I love my president because.......
Go get wild and crazy...make us laugh. But what I want to know is, what's the prize?
I love my president because.......
Go get wild and crazy...make us laugh. But what I want to know is, what's the prize?
A Modest Proposal for Regaining Civility in Congress
I don't know about anyone else, but I am really sick and tired of hearing Republicans consistently refer to the Democratic party as the "Democrat" Party, describe Democratic proposals as "Democrat" proposals, and substitute "Democrat members" for Democratic members.
If the Republicans are really serious about regaining even a modicum of civility in Congress, they could begin by stopping the misuse and abuse of the name of the Democratic Party.
And it really irritates me that I never hear members of the Democratic Party object to the continued, purposeful and disrespectful use of the name of the party. At the very least, Democratic members of the House and Senate ought to politely interrupt their Republican colleagues and gently point out that it's not the Democrat Party, but the Democratic Party.
Either the Republicans respond positively to this request or the Democrats should start saying things like:
"The Republic Party is misguided."
"The Republic budget proposals are spendthrift."
"Republic members of Congress are tools of corporate interests."
If the Republicans are really serious about regaining even a modicum of civility in Congress, they could begin by stopping the misuse and abuse of the name of the Democratic Party.
And it really irritates me that I never hear members of the Democratic Party object to the continued, purposeful and disrespectful use of the name of the party. At the very least, Democratic members of the House and Senate ought to politely interrupt their Republican colleagues and gently point out that it's not the Democrat Party, but the Democratic Party.
Either the Republicans respond positively to this request or the Democrats should start saying things like:
"The Republic Party is misguided."
"The Republic budget proposals are spendthrift."
"Republic members of Congress are tools of corporate interests."
Drunken GOP Sailors
In 2003, Republican Sen. John McCain criticized fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor." Among other things, McCain lamented a $31 billion national energy bill would largely fund industry tax breaks. "The numbers are astonishing....Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has." That was 2003, this is 2006.
Here's a headline from the Wall Street Journal, January 2004:
Drunken GOP Sailors Even Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress didn't spend like this.
Here is conservative radio personality Tammy Bruce in September 2005:
Bush Is Spending Like a Drunken Sailor! While I love the president, and have no qualms putting my safety in his hands when it comes to dealing with the War on Radical Islam, I certainly would never give him my wallet when it comes to domestic issues.
For those of you who are wondering how conservatives (McCain and the Wall Street Journal are conservative, I believe) are reacting to the Bush regime's current 2006 spending spree and the Congress' pork barrel largesse, one needs to look no further than the Heritage Foundation to see how disconcerted some conservatives are by the behavior of these drunken sailors.
In a section there website, the Heritage Foundation has a page entitled Appropriations Watch which is prefaced this way:
Here's a headline from the Wall Street Journal, January 2004:
Drunken GOP Sailors Even Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress didn't spend like this.
Here is conservative radio personality Tammy Bruce in September 2005:
Bush Is Spending Like a Drunken Sailor! While I love the president, and have no qualms putting my safety in his hands when it comes to dealing with the War on Radical Islam, I certainly would never give him my wallet when it comes to domestic issues.
For those of you who are wondering how conservatives (McCain and the Wall Street Journal are conservative, I believe) are reacting to the Bush regime's current 2006 spending spree and the Congress' pork barrel largesse, one needs to look no further than the Heritage Foundation to see how disconcerted some conservatives are by the behavior of these drunken sailors.
In a section there website, the Heritage Foundation has a page entitled Appropriations Watch which is prefaced this way:
"These pages demonstrate that during budget season lawmakers and lobbyists operate with a mindset that no federal government spending is bad government spending.
It all adds up. Pork-barrel spending continues to grow when defense needs are a priority, and lawmakers ignore the best way to create short-term and long-term stimulus for the economy: accelerating President Bush's tax cuts, and returning more money to the taxpayers."
So no less a conservative think-tank than the Heritage Foundation has pretty much had it with a Congress (controlled by Republicans) which is lobbied to excess by corporate interests (mostly Republican) which strong-arm the pork and the earmarks, and a Republican administration that knee-jerk approves it all.
Of course, it's not clear when they say so generically:
"...the best way to create short-term and long-term stimulus for the economy: accelerating President Bush's tax cuts, and returning more money to the taxpayers."
Are they suggesting that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be expanded to include more substantially the not-so-wealthy? Or are they merely suggesting that the current tax cuts for the wealthy should be made permanent?
It's all so mysterious, because on other pages of their website, the Heritage Foundation decries the out-of-control budget, the negative influences of lobbyists and special interests, and the disastrous effects of such a huge budget deficit.
On one page, Brian M. Riedl, Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation (whew!), proposes Six Budget Reforms to Restrain Lobbyists and Special Interests. (It is reassuring that people at the Heritage Foundation are actually worrying about these kinds of things.)
Riedl proposes the following (for more detail, read the actual piece cited above): 1. Ban Pork Projects; 2. If Pork Remains, Add Sunshine; 3. Make all Federal Grants Public; 4. Term-Limit Appropriators; 5. Rewrite the Outdated 1974 Congressional Budget Act; 6. Enact a Federal TaxpayersÂ’ Bill of Rights.
Notice how from number one to number two, he allows for the possibility that banning pork may be an impossible task, so in number two he pleads for openness, for disclosure. He seems to be saying -- hey, if you are going to keep stealing taxpayer money for your little projects, at least let's make it clear who is doing the stealing and for what. Like that is actually going to happen.
It's worth taking a look at the pork barrel spending increases in Federal Spending Bills since 1995:
- 2005 - 13,997
- 2004 - 10,656
- 2003 - 9,362
- 2002 - 8,341
- 2001 - 6,333
- 2000 - 4,326
- 1999 - 2,838
- 1998 - 2100
- 1997 - 1,596
- 1996 - 958
- 1995 - 1439
The drunken sailors are clearly winning.
Riedl also authors a piece entitled "New CBO Baseline Substantially Understates Grim Budget Picture" (January 27, 2006) which begins this way:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a balanced budget by 2012. A number of CBOÂ’s assumptions underlying this projection are, to say the least, problematic. For example, CBOÂ’s projections assume that all of the PresidentÂ’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as all other temporary tax cuts, are allowed to expire and that the Alternative Minimum Tax is not fixed before it digs further into middle-class incomes. CBO is also required by law to assume that there will be no more appropriations for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and for Gulf Coast reconstruction; that the pending reconciliation budget will have no effects; and that discretionary spending will not grow at all, in inflation-adjusted terms. With all these caveats in place, CBOÂ’s budget baseline is extremely unrealistic."
"Extremely unrealistic" and "grim budget picture" are not words the Heritage Foundation uses lightly in criticizing a Republican budget. Riedl sums up his concerns: 1. Budget deficits are far larger than CBO projects; 2) Tax revenues are not the problem; 3) Runaway spending is the problem; 4) Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are out of control; 5) Halving the deficit by 2009 will be difficult, but it is the long-term deficit that matters more; and 6) Net interest spending is growing.
The DailyKos, who has inspired my piece, concludes about all this:
While the deficits are a clear result of Bush's tax cuts, Heritage would rather see a different solution -- drastic spending cuts. But given the size of these budget deficits, cuts from the discretionary budget won't do the trick.
In 2004, we had $895 billion in discretionary spending, including $454 billion in defense spending. That means that we had $441 billion in non-defense discretionary spending.
Our budget deficit in 2004 was $412 billion. So without raising revenues, our nation would literally have to eliminate the entire defense department (which ain't gonna happen) or its entire non-defense discretionary spending to simply balance the budget. That's not including the $4.3 TRILLION in debt we current hold and should really be trying to pay off.
Heritage knows this because its solution is much harsher -- cut social security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlements.
We are seeing Grover Norquist's "drown the government" strategy in action.
But remember, we weren't in this mess before Bush irresponsibly cut taxes and engaged uunnecessaryssary foreign entanglements.
February 01, 2006
The State of the Union 2006
Just before George Bush gave his State of the Union (SOTU) speech filled with platitudes about bringing liberty and freedom to people around the world (the notable exception was the people of China), Cindy Sheehan was arrested by Capitol Hill police because of a t-shirt she was wearing which stated that 2, 242 American soldiers have died in Iraq. She had been invited by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey to be her guest at the address at the Capitol building. Here, in her own words, is Cindy Sheehan's story about what happened.
Meanwhile, Bush went on to give a speech that was one of the most militaristic, bellicose, uncompromising, jingoistic speeches given at a State of the Union address in a long time. In fact, I defy anyone to show me a Presidential State of the Union address which went on longer about evil ones and American imperial might than this one, except for maybe one Franklin Roosevelt might have given in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and America's declaration of war against the Germans and Japanese. Literally half of Bush's speech was about war, and American military might, and our domination of the world.
Particularly startling was the contrast between this address and the one he gave in January 2002. Back then, he had a country united behind him, he had standing ovations, en masse, from both sides of the aisle, and he had a lock on support for his fight against terror. Last night, just under half the Congress sat through many of the Republican ovation excesses (it got to be pretty embarrassing), just over half the country disagrees with his current Iraq policy, and every poll in the month of January shows a minority of the country believes he is doing a good job. His Presidential squandering of that unity and support will be one of the hallmarks of his Presidency.
Contrary to what many of the talking heads were saying last night (David Brooks and Tom Oliphant, in particular), I did not hear real conciliatory remarks, especially on Iraq and war.
He gave no quarter in his reiteration of continued war.
In fact, he pointedly slammed all Americans who have a different point of view.
He accused his opponents of wanting to leave "vicious attackers alone."
He declares that his opponents will not find "peace in retreat," or "honor in retreat."
He accuses his opponents of "allowing radical Islam to work its will."
He claims his opponents would leave "an assaulted world to fend for itself," that if his opponents would have their way, "we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage."
In obvious attempt to contrast himself with opponent of the Iraq war, he claims "we will never surrender to evil."
He goes on to attack "isolationism" as if his opponents are calling for it.
His lack of conciliation, his total lack of recognition of the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan and any willingness to share that with the American people, his self-righteous condemnation of critics -- all were obvious to me.
Bush also seems to have discovered, six years into his Presidency, that America has an addiction to oil. It's like someone woke him from his somnabulence with news that Saudi Arabia just might not be our friend and that Exxon/Mobil just announced the largest profits of any corporation, ever, in history. Between now and November, Bush and the GOP will, in all likelihood, try to take the lead on this big issue that worries the American people.
What's Bush's solution for the oil addiction? Apparently, coal and nuclear power plants (both industries that some major investors are shying away from because of the poor projected returns and liability problems inherent in those industries) are top priority for him. He also threw in some verbiage about "better batteries," and "ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass." (By the way, when you go to the White House website to read Bush's speech, the White House press office, instead of simply providing the text for the speech, has inserted every single one of the instances of applause into the text. It's pretty laughable).
Bush persisted with his position that he has constitutional war authority to conduct his wiretaps. No compromise, no excuses, just conviction tolerating no contradiction.
And you know Bush is in trouble when he proposes a commission to study the impact of the baby boom generation on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This would, of course, go on long past the November elections, but would give him sufficient cover in the meantime. He can say: "Hey, let's wait until the commission provides its findings." It's somewhat like his other mantra: "Hey, let's wait until the prosecutor finishes his investigation."
This paragraph from his speech was a clear message to John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- abortion needs to be outlawed. Revealingly, it came just after he acknowledged their appointments.
A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.
No conciliation there.
Other topics he covered included HIV/AIDS, education, Katrina, the Helping America's Youth Initiative, and Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King.
I think we can deduce, from this speech, some of the outlines of the Republican game-plan for elections 2006.
-- Bull your way through (literally and figuratively) to November on the war on terror and the war in Iraq, probably throwing in a few troop reductions in the interim (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Dominate the energy issue (we are saving the country from the radical Islamic countries that provide our oil);
-- Give no quarter at all on the issue of wiretaps (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Allow no anti-patriotic, un-American criticism of the Bush war on terror (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Concentrate on issues most Americans can get behind (it's hard for Americans to be against oil independence, helping children, helping sick people, giving relief to hurricane victims);
-- Continue to push the Patriot Act (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Continue to push for making the tax cuts permanent (we are saving the country's economy).
Meanwhile, Bush went on to give a speech that was one of the most militaristic, bellicose, uncompromising, jingoistic speeches given at a State of the Union address in a long time. In fact, I defy anyone to show me a Presidential State of the Union address which went on longer about evil ones and American imperial might than this one, except for maybe one Franklin Roosevelt might have given in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and America's declaration of war against the Germans and Japanese. Literally half of Bush's speech was about war, and American military might, and our domination of the world.
Particularly startling was the contrast between this address and the one he gave in January 2002. Back then, he had a country united behind him, he had standing ovations, en masse, from both sides of the aisle, and he had a lock on support for his fight against terror. Last night, just under half the Congress sat through many of the Republican ovation excesses (it got to be pretty embarrassing), just over half the country disagrees with his current Iraq policy, and every poll in the month of January shows a minority of the country believes he is doing a good job. His Presidential squandering of that unity and support will be one of the hallmarks of his Presidency.
Contrary to what many of the talking heads were saying last night (David Brooks and Tom Oliphant, in particular), I did not hear real conciliatory remarks, especially on Iraq and war.
He gave no quarter in his reiteration of continued war.
In fact, he pointedly slammed all Americans who have a different point of view.
He accused his opponents of wanting to leave "vicious attackers alone."
He declares that his opponents will not find "peace in retreat," or "honor in retreat."
He accuses his opponents of "allowing radical Islam to work its will."
He claims his opponents would leave "an assaulted world to fend for itself," that if his opponents would have their way, "we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage."
In obvious attempt to contrast himself with opponent of the Iraq war, he claims "we will never surrender to evil."
He goes on to attack "isolationism" as if his opponents are calling for it.
His lack of conciliation, his total lack of recognition of the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan and any willingness to share that with the American people, his self-righteous condemnation of critics -- all were obvious to me.
Bush also seems to have discovered, six years into his Presidency, that America has an addiction to oil. It's like someone woke him from his somnabulence with news that Saudi Arabia just might not be our friend and that Exxon/Mobil just announced the largest profits of any corporation, ever, in history. Between now and November, Bush and the GOP will, in all likelihood, try to take the lead on this big issue that worries the American people.
What's Bush's solution for the oil addiction? Apparently, coal and nuclear power plants (both industries that some major investors are shying away from because of the poor projected returns and liability problems inherent in those industries) are top priority for him. He also threw in some verbiage about "better batteries," and "ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass." (By the way, when you go to the White House website to read Bush's speech, the White House press office, instead of simply providing the text for the speech, has inserted every single one of the instances of applause into the text. It's pretty laughable).
Bush persisted with his position that he has constitutional war authority to conduct his wiretaps. No compromise, no excuses, just conviction tolerating no contradiction.
And you know Bush is in trouble when he proposes a commission to study the impact of the baby boom generation on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This would, of course, go on long past the November elections, but would give him sufficient cover in the meantime. He can say: "Hey, let's wait until the commission provides its findings." It's somewhat like his other mantra: "Hey, let's wait until the prosecutor finishes his investigation."
This paragraph from his speech was a clear message to John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- abortion needs to be outlawed. Revealingly, it came just after he acknowledged their appointments.
A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.
No conciliation there.
Other topics he covered included HIV/AIDS, education, Katrina, the Helping America's Youth Initiative, and Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King.
I think we can deduce, from this speech, some of the outlines of the Republican game-plan for elections 2006.
-- Bull your way through (literally and figuratively) to November on the war on terror and the war in Iraq, probably throwing in a few troop reductions in the interim (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Dominate the energy issue (we are saving the country from the radical Islamic countries that provide our oil);
-- Give no quarter at all on the issue of wiretaps (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Allow no anti-patriotic, un-American criticism of the Bush war on terror (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Concentrate on issues most Americans can get behind (it's hard for Americans to be against oil independence, helping children, helping sick people, giving relief to hurricane victims);
-- Continue to push the Patriot Act (we are saving the country from attack);
-- Continue to push for making the tax cuts permanent (we are saving the country's economy).
Rewriting Wikipedia
From Evan Derkacz on AlterNet:
*******************************************
Okay press, you wanted a bipartisan scandal soooo bad? Here you go (even if it's technically more Republican than Democrat, unlike the Abramoff scandal it does involve Dems at least the teensy tiniest bit, we'll just call it bipartisan).
Encouraged by the revelation that Marty Meehan (D-MA) had staffers alter his Wikipedia entry to remove unflattering (but true) facts, Wikipedia ace detectives deployed themselves to find out just who else had been fudging with the people's medium.
Here's Micah Sifry: "It looks like more Republican staffers than Democrats have their fingers caught in the cookie jar known as the Wikipedia. At least that's what this entry on the Wikipedia page shows..."
Some samples:
Richard Pombo (Removing referenced to possible ties to Jack Abramoff and many other npov [neutral point of view] yet politically damaging items)
MoveOn (changing liberal to "left-wing")
Trent Lott (editing references to his rumored actions...)
Nancy Pelosi (entering libelous statements)
Phil Gramm (removing quotes I wouldn't want anyone to see if I had to run for re-election)
Wikipedia itself had this to say:
"Further investigation by Wikipedia members discovered well over a thousand edits by IP addresses allocated to the US House of Representatives and Senate. These edits had, among others, added libelous statements, removed content with malice, added childish insults, violated Wikipedia Policy. This has resulted in the blocking of at least one of the IP addresses..."
******************************
Is this an inherent fault with the concept of Wikipedia? Is it really possible to have a people's encyclopedia, written by the people, and not have huge rewriting and distortion?
*******************************************
Okay press, you wanted a bipartisan scandal soooo bad? Here you go (even if it's technically more Republican than Democrat, unlike the Abramoff scandal it does involve Dems at least the teensy tiniest bit, we'll just call it bipartisan).
Encouraged by the revelation that Marty Meehan (D-MA) had staffers alter his Wikipedia entry to remove unflattering (but true) facts, Wikipedia ace detectives deployed themselves to find out just who else had been fudging with the people's medium.
Here's Micah Sifry: "It looks like more Republican staffers than Democrats have their fingers caught in the cookie jar known as the Wikipedia. At least that's what this entry on the Wikipedia page shows..."
Some samples:
Richard Pombo (Removing referenced to possible ties to Jack Abramoff and many other npov [neutral point of view] yet politically damaging items)
MoveOn (changing liberal to "left-wing")
Trent Lott (editing references to his rumored actions...)
Nancy Pelosi (entering libelous statements)
Phil Gramm (removing quotes I wouldn't want anyone to see if I had to run for re-election)
Wikipedia itself had this to say:
"Further investigation by Wikipedia members discovered well over a thousand edits by IP addresses allocated to the US House of Representatives and Senate. These edits had, among others, added libelous statements, removed content with malice, added childish insults, violated Wikipedia Policy. This has resulted in the blocking of at least one of the IP addresses..."
******************************
Is this an inherent fault with the concept of Wikipedia? Is it really possible to have a people's encyclopedia, written by the people, and not have huge rewriting and distortion?
Palestinian Aid Programs: Cut or Continue?
Mahmoud Abbas, the PLO/Fatah leader who lost in the Palestinian elections, has urged the world powers not to cut humanitarian and economic assistance to the Palestinian people.
According to the BBC, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians' biggest Arab donor, also believes the international community are being "unreasonable".
Here is what Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said: "The European Union insisted on having elections in Palestine, and this is the result of what they asked for. Now to come around, and say [they] don't accept the will of the people that was expressed through democratic means, seems an unreasonable position to take." Prince Saud said he believed Hamas would act responsibly in government and that all parties needed "cool heads... rather than reactions that close the door to peaceful settlement".
The European Union and the United States, together, gave about $1 billion is aid to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. They are threatening to cut off this aid if Hamas does not announce major changes in its positions vis a vis Israel.
Hamas has categorically rejected the EU/USA position.
Here is the official Hamas website. It clearly lays out its positions on many different issues including its desire to destroy Israel.
According to the BBC, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians' biggest Arab donor, also believes the international community are being "unreasonable".
Here is what Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said: "The European Union insisted on having elections in Palestine, and this is the result of what they asked for. Now to come around, and say [they] don't accept the will of the people that was expressed through democratic means, seems an unreasonable position to take." Prince Saud said he believed Hamas would act responsibly in government and that all parties needed "cool heads... rather than reactions that close the door to peaceful settlement".
The European Union and the United States, together, gave about $1 billion is aid to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. They are threatening to cut off this aid if Hamas does not announce major changes in its positions vis a vis Israel.
Hamas has categorically rejected the EU/USA position.
Here is the official Hamas website. It clearly lays out its positions on many different issues including its desire to destroy Israel.
January 31, 2006
Kicking Ass: The Democratic Party Blog
Believe it or not, that is the actual name of the official Democratic Party blog -- Kicking Ass.
I just went there for the first time ever, as part of my research into and interest in the Democratic Party strategy to win in November, and that is what I discovered.
I can imagine a blog started by boosters of a high school football team naming their blog Kicking Ass.
I can imagine a blog for karate students naming their blog Kicking Ass.
I can imagine fans of wrestlemania naming their blog Kicking Ass.
I can imagine a blog started by unrepentant wife-beaters naming their blog Kicking Ass.
Was the naming of this blog left to some 17-year old intern? What adult approved this puerile name? What kind of message does the Democratic Party think this name sends to supporters and opponents alike? How can the people at the National Democratic headquarters not be constantly embarrassed by this name? Does the leadership of the Democratic Party really think we are going to garner undecided votes with language like this?
I can just see the Republicans cowering in their corridors of power -- "ohhhh noooo, they are going to kick our asses!!"
I am not a prude, by any means. Ask anyone who knows me. But this is really disheartening.
I just went there for the first time ever, as part of my research into and interest in the Democratic Party strategy to win in November, and that is what I discovered.
I can imagine a blog started by boosters of a high school football team naming their blog Kicking Ass.
I can imagine a blog for karate students naming their blog Kicking Ass.
I can imagine fans of wrestlemania naming their blog Kicking Ass.
I can imagine a blog started by unrepentant wife-beaters naming their blog Kicking Ass.
Was the naming of this blog left to some 17-year old intern? What adult approved this puerile name? What kind of message does the Democratic Party think this name sends to supporters and opponents alike? How can the people at the National Democratic headquarters not be constantly embarrassed by this name? Does the leadership of the Democratic Party really think we are going to garner undecided votes with language like this?
I can just see the Republicans cowering in their corridors of power -- "ohhhh noooo, they are going to kick our asses!!"
I am not a prude, by any means. Ask anyone who knows me. But this is really disheartening.
Democrats Shout Hallelujah!
According to the NY Times, southern Democrats are supporting teaching bible classes in public schools in Georgia and Alabama.
Southern Democrats have always tried to maintain a slight disconnect from the national party because of what is seen as its secular image. Many of these Democrats support prayer in school and tend to wear their religion (Christianity, of course) on their sleeves. They would like to see the national party get religion much more than it does. Howard Dean seems to be taking their side:
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."
Unfortunately, the Democrats probably look like Johnny-come-latelys since southern conservative Republicans have been supporting the idea of Bible study in the classroom for decades and have actually succeeded in getting it into some classrooms already.
The bible study in question is based on a new textbook, The Bible and Its Influence.
The NYT reports:
It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.
The NYT goes on:
In Georgia, the proposal marked a new course for the Democratic Party. The state's Democrats, including some sponsors of the bill, opposed a Republican proposal a few years ago to authorize the teaching of a different Bible course, which used a translation of the Scriptures as its text, calling it an inappropriate endorsement of religion. The sponsors say they are introducing their Bible measure now partly to pre-empt a potential Republican proposal seeking to display the Ten Commandments in schools...In Alabama, a deeply religious state where Democrats support prayer in the schools and a Democratic candidate for governor recently introduced her campaign with the hymn "Give Me That Old Time Religion..."
Notice how the Times says that Alabama is a deeply religious state. Now there is precise reporting. Is it a deeply religious Muslim state? Or a deeply religious Jewish state? Or perhaps it is a deeply religious Hindu state? Why can't the Times just say simply that it is a deeply religious Christian state?
And let's be clear about one thing -- the conservative Christian Republicans don't want to teach some kind of watered-down, "academic," and "detached" textbook on the bible, they want to teach the actual BIBLE in public schools. These Democrats don't even have the spine of their so-called Christian convictions.
Here's how the Times reports on the conservative Republican response to this Democratic conversion:
Christian conservatives, however, say they have been pushing public schools to offer courses on the Bible for decades, and Republicans in both Alabama and Georgia say some schools already offer such electives.
"Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees," State Senator Eric Johnson of Georgia, the Republican leader from Savannah, said in a statement. "This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."
Saying he found "a little irony" in the fact that the Democratic sponsors had voted against a Republican proposal for a Bible course six years ago, Mr. Johnson added, "It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."
Betty Peters, a Republican on the Alabama school board who opposed the initiative in that state, also dismissed the initiative as "pandering." Democrats, she argued, had adopted a new strategy: "Let's just wrap ourselves in Jesus."
They have a point. The Democrats look utterly stupid and craven taking these positions. There simply is no way that the Democrats are going to take back power by trying to outplay the Republicans with the Christianity card. There are so many issues the Democrats need to concentrate on and this is not one of them.
At a time when the American people are losing their jobs, losing their pensions, losing their savings, going bankrupt, facing health care crises, working more and making less, being raped at the gas pump, facing increased foreclosures, having their privacy invaded, and finding themselves increasingly the victim of corporate extortion -- this is not the time to attempt to out-Jesus the Republicans.
It's one thing to reach out on economic, political and social issues, but it's quite another to try to convince evangelical Christians that Democrats Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Evan Bayh, Wesley Walker, and John Kerry are bible believers. They are not. There is a big difference between being a Christian and being a bible believer. Just ask the bible believers. Trying to hoodwink these people will never gain any votes at all for the Democrats.
Southern Democrats have always tried to maintain a slight disconnect from the national party because of what is seen as its secular image. Many of these Democrats support prayer in school and tend to wear their religion (Christianity, of course) on their sleeves. They would like to see the national party get religion much more than it does. Howard Dean seems to be taking their side:
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."
Unfortunately, the Democrats probably look like Johnny-come-latelys since southern conservative Republicans have been supporting the idea of Bible study in the classroom for decades and have actually succeeded in getting it into some classrooms already.
The bible study in question is based on a new textbook, The Bible and Its Influence.
The NYT reports:
It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.
The NYT goes on:
In Georgia, the proposal marked a new course for the Democratic Party. The state's Democrats, including some sponsors of the bill, opposed a Republican proposal a few years ago to authorize the teaching of a different Bible course, which used a translation of the Scriptures as its text, calling it an inappropriate endorsement of religion. The sponsors say they are introducing their Bible measure now partly to pre-empt a potential Republican proposal seeking to display the Ten Commandments in schools...In Alabama, a deeply religious state where Democrats support prayer in the schools and a Democratic candidate for governor recently introduced her campaign with the hymn "Give Me That Old Time Religion..."
Notice how the Times says that Alabama is a deeply religious state. Now there is precise reporting. Is it a deeply religious Muslim state? Or a deeply religious Jewish state? Or perhaps it is a deeply religious Hindu state? Why can't the Times just say simply that it is a deeply religious Christian state?
And let's be clear about one thing -- the conservative Christian Republicans don't want to teach some kind of watered-down, "academic," and "detached" textbook on the bible, they want to teach the actual BIBLE in public schools. These Democrats don't even have the spine of their so-called Christian convictions.
Here's how the Times reports on the conservative Republican response to this Democratic conversion:
Christian conservatives, however, say they have been pushing public schools to offer courses on the Bible for decades, and Republicans in both Alabama and Georgia say some schools already offer such electives.
"Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees," State Senator Eric Johnson of Georgia, the Republican leader from Savannah, said in a statement. "This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."
Saying he found "a little irony" in the fact that the Democratic sponsors had voted against a Republican proposal for a Bible course six years ago, Mr. Johnson added, "It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."
Betty Peters, a Republican on the Alabama school board who opposed the initiative in that state, also dismissed the initiative as "pandering." Democrats, she argued, had adopted a new strategy: "Let's just wrap ourselves in Jesus."
They have a point. The Democrats look utterly stupid and craven taking these positions. There simply is no way that the Democrats are going to take back power by trying to outplay the Republicans with the Christianity card. There are so many issues the Democrats need to concentrate on and this is not one of them.
At a time when the American people are losing their jobs, losing their pensions, losing their savings, going bankrupt, facing health care crises, working more and making less, being raped at the gas pump, facing increased foreclosures, having their privacy invaded, and finding themselves increasingly the victim of corporate extortion -- this is not the time to attempt to out-Jesus the Republicans.
It's one thing to reach out on economic, political and social issues, but it's quite another to try to convince evangelical Christians that Democrats Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Evan Bayh, Wesley Walker, and John Kerry are bible believers. They are not. There is a big difference between being a Christian and being a bible believer. Just ask the bible believers. Trying to hoodwink these people will never gain any votes at all for the Democrats.
Bush Administration Threatens American Scientist
The Bush administration has threatened "one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world" with "dire consequences" if he doesn't shut up about greenhouse gas emissions and his conernes about them.
The New York Times (thanks to Priscilla at Water Weaving for bringing this to my attention) reports on the attempts to muzzle Dr. James E. Hansen, longtime director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. According to the story, "officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."
Hansen, himself, said that all the pressure has come in the form of undocumentable telephone calls.
What sparked this clampdown on him? He gave information to ABC News that scientific data clearly demonstrates that 2005 was the warmest year on record in over 100 years. Imagine that. Bush doesn't want us to hear something as important as that.
About his responsibility as a scientist, Hansen said: "Communicating with the public seems to be essential, because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."
Apparently, the special interests are watching Dr. Hansen very carefully. The fact is, however, they don't even have to twist arms with the Bush administration to get it to do their bidding. Those special interests have people who work right in the White House itself, and in other federal agencies, who will make all the calls necessary on behalf of their corporate clients. It's a simple premise -- those clients don't want the facts about corporate responsibility for polluting our environment known.
This kind of threat and menace toward a world renowned scientist comes easy to people who ignore the welfare of American citizens and who willingly aid and abet the polluters and exploiters of our land, air and sea.
The New York Times (thanks to Priscilla at Water Weaving for bringing this to my attention) reports on the attempts to muzzle Dr. James E. Hansen, longtime director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. According to the story, "officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."
Hansen, himself, said that all the pressure has come in the form of undocumentable telephone calls.
What sparked this clampdown on him? He gave information to ABC News that scientific data clearly demonstrates that 2005 was the warmest year on record in over 100 years. Imagine that. Bush doesn't want us to hear something as important as that.
About his responsibility as a scientist, Hansen said: "Communicating with the public seems to be essential, because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."
Apparently, the special interests are watching Dr. Hansen very carefully. The fact is, however, they don't even have to twist arms with the Bush administration to get it to do their bidding. Those special interests have people who work right in the White House itself, and in other federal agencies, who will make all the calls necessary on behalf of their corporate clients. It's a simple premise -- those clients don't want the facts about corporate responsibility for polluting our environment known.
This kind of threat and menace toward a world renowned scientist comes easy to people who ignore the welfare of American citizens and who willingly aid and abet the polluters and exploiters of our land, air and sea.
January 30, 2006
Hamas: Listening to the Press
Here are snippets from the world press commenting on Hamas and its electoral victory.
The Associated Press:
The group (Hamas), which opposes the existence of Israel and has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, is expected to lead the next Palestinian government, hurting the chances for a peace deal.
Columnist Jonathan Steele in the Guardian (UK):
Above all, Europe should not get hung up on the wrong issues, like armed resistance and the "war on terror". Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus. Hamas's refusal to give formal recognition of Israel's right to exist should also not be seen by Europe as an urgent problem.
Reuters:
Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic Palestinian state.
The Sunday Telegraph (UK):
...though Hamas retains much of its spine-chilling rhetoric towards Israel and remains committed to regaining lost Palestinian land by force, a new pragmatism is entering its outlook.
The New York Times:
(Hamas leader Khalid Maashal) insisted that "resistance is a legitimate right that we will practice and protect," and he defended attacks on Israeli civilians, which included many suicide bombings until a cease-fire nearly a year ago...
(The Hamas Charter) calls for the elimination of Israel and Jews from Islamic holy land and portrays the Jews as evil, citing an anti-Semitic version of history going back to the Crusades. It also includes a reference to the noted czarist forgery of a plan for world domination, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and condemnation of supposedly Zionist organizations like the Rotary Club and the Masons...
No Hamas leader or candidate is on record as sanctioning a permanent recognition of Israel's right to exist side by side with an independent Palestinian state, which has been the cornerstone assumption of peace negotiations since the Oslo accords in 1993...
...As Mr. Zahar (prominent Hamas leader in Gaza) also said, "We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay, nor his ownership of any inch of land."
Russia's Moskovskiy Komsomolets:
"Hamas is terrorism. Terrorism is war...It is obvious that the emerging situation will bring peace to no-one: neither Palestinians nor their neighbours."
Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
"First we should wait and see how the forming of a government in Ramallah proceeds, and what kind of signals a new government under the influence of Hamas sends out... even results which we do not really want to see need to be accepted."
The Washington Post:
The Bush administration has spent nearly $500 million in the past year to bolster the Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah party, which was nonetheless crushed by Hamas at the polls. Against the advice of Israeli officials, the administration had pushed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to hold the elections without delay, believing that the voting would strengthen his hand in disarming militia groups. Instead, the plan backfired, and an organization that has claimed credit for dozens of suicide bombings -- some resulting in the deaths of Americans -- is poised to take power.
USA Today:
Hamas' win comes amid political uncertainty in Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had a stroke this month and is in a coma. Olmert has assumed Sharon's powers until elections March 28.
Hamas has an extensive network of charities and social services. Its candidates swept to wins in West Bank municipal elections last month.
Hamas' parliamentary campaign focused on ridding the Palestinian Authority of Fatah corruption and boosting living standards. Its platform made no mention of suicide bombers or the destruction of Israel, but the group's charter calls for Israel to be made an Islamic state for Palestinians.
The Associated Press:
The group (Hamas), which opposes the existence of Israel and has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, is expected to lead the next Palestinian government, hurting the chances for a peace deal.
Columnist Jonathan Steele in the Guardian (UK):
Above all, Europe should not get hung up on the wrong issues, like armed resistance and the "war on terror". Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus. Hamas's refusal to give formal recognition of Israel's right to exist should also not be seen by Europe as an urgent problem.
Reuters:
Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic Palestinian state.
The Sunday Telegraph (UK):
...though Hamas retains much of its spine-chilling rhetoric towards Israel and remains committed to regaining lost Palestinian land by force, a new pragmatism is entering its outlook.
The New York Times:
(Hamas leader Khalid Maashal) insisted that "resistance is a legitimate right that we will practice and protect," and he defended attacks on Israeli civilians, which included many suicide bombings until a cease-fire nearly a year ago...
(The Hamas Charter) calls for the elimination of Israel and Jews from Islamic holy land and portrays the Jews as evil, citing an anti-Semitic version of history going back to the Crusades. It also includes a reference to the noted czarist forgery of a plan for world domination, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and condemnation of supposedly Zionist organizations like the Rotary Club and the Masons...
No Hamas leader or candidate is on record as sanctioning a permanent recognition of Israel's right to exist side by side with an independent Palestinian state, which has been the cornerstone assumption of peace negotiations since the Oslo accords in 1993...
...As Mr. Zahar (prominent Hamas leader in Gaza) also said, "We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay, nor his ownership of any inch of land."
Russia's Moskovskiy Komsomolets:
"Hamas is terrorism. Terrorism is war...It is obvious that the emerging situation will bring peace to no-one: neither Palestinians nor their neighbours."
Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
"First we should wait and see how the forming of a government in Ramallah proceeds, and what kind of signals a new government under the influence of Hamas sends out... even results which we do not really want to see need to be accepted."
The Washington Post:
The Bush administration has spent nearly $500 million in the past year to bolster the Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah party, which was nonetheless crushed by Hamas at the polls. Against the advice of Israeli officials, the administration had pushed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to hold the elections without delay, believing that the voting would strengthen his hand in disarming militia groups. Instead, the plan backfired, and an organization that has claimed credit for dozens of suicide bombings -- some resulting in the deaths of Americans -- is poised to take power.
USA Today:
Hamas' win comes amid political uncertainty in Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had a stroke this month and is in a coma. Olmert has assumed Sharon's powers until elections March 28.
Hamas has an extensive network of charities and social services. Its candidates swept to wins in West Bank municipal elections last month.
Hamas' parliamentary campaign focused on ridding the Palestinian Authority of Fatah corruption and boosting living standards. Its platform made no mention of suicide bombers or the destruction of Israel, but the group's charter calls for Israel to be made an Islamic state for Palestinians.
White House Tampers with Abramoff Investigation
George Bush has offered the federal prosecutor in charge of the Abramoff inquiry a federal judgeship appointment. According to the Times of London, "Noel Hillman, in charge of unravelling the burgeoning bribery scandal on Capitol Hill that could ensnare dozens of Republican congressmen and their staff, will step down next week after accepting the offer of a judgeship in New Jersey."
Reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre, when Richard Nixon fired Watergate independent prosecutor Archibald Cox, and then forced the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, the Bush White House has brazenly stalled and delayed the ongoing investigation by this act.
This White House and the GOP is so fearful of the results of such an investigation and the negative impact it will have on incumbent Republicans and the 2006 Congressional elections, it will do whatever it can to interrupt the process as much as possible between now and November of this year. All the protestations by the White House to the contrary cannot obscure the fact that this action delays the investigation which will proceed, leaderless, for an indeterminate amount of time.
This is the first shot in the Bush administration's war against this investigation.
Reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre, when Richard Nixon fired Watergate independent prosecutor Archibald Cox, and then forced the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, the Bush White House has brazenly stalled and delayed the ongoing investigation by this act.
This White House and the GOP is so fearful of the results of such an investigation and the negative impact it will have on incumbent Republicans and the 2006 Congressional elections, it will do whatever it can to interrupt the process as much as possible between now and November of this year. All the protestations by the White House to the contrary cannot obscure the fact that this action delays the investigation which will proceed, leaderless, for an indeterminate amount of time.
This is the first shot in the Bush administration's war against this investigation.
January 29, 2006
Divining Davos
Originally published at www.tompaine.com
The world's rich and powerful are heading this week to their annual meeting in the plush mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland. Hosted by the great global corporations (Citigroup, Siemens, Microsoft, Nestlé, etc.), some 2000 CEOs, prominent politicians, pundits and international bureaucrats will network over great food, fine wine, good skiing and cozy evenings by the fire contemplating the world's future.
This is not a secret cabal; journalists will issue daily reports to the rest of us on the wit and informal charm of our financial betters. Rather, it is like the political convention of those who manage the global economy. Call it the Party of Davos.
All markets are systems of rules that determine what sort of people are winners and what sort are losers. Politics is largely conflict among the different sorts -- or classes -- over who gets what.
In stable societies, a social contract provides for enough wealth to trickle down to keep the lower orders from rebelling. Thus, in the 1950s, when Dwight Eisenhower's secretary of defense said that what was good for General Motors was good for America, most Americans -- including the United Auto Workers -- agreed. Within the boundaries of the U.S. economy, capital and labor needed each other.
But as corporations went global, the mutual dependence weakened. And in the absence of global democracy, their owners and top managers seized the opportunity to set the new rules without social constraints. The first head of the World Trade Organization called these new rules a "constitution for the global economy." It's a constitution that protects just one world citizen -- the corporate investor. It prohibits effective protections for the workers, consumers and the environment.
In America, as in most places, the party of Davos is bipartisan. It includes Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, Robert Rubin and Don Rumsfeld, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. (George Bush is also a member, but he doesn't like to travel). John Kerry is quoted as having called himself a "Davos" man.
Indeed, without reference to economic class, it is impossible to explain why Democratic elites championed NAFTA, the WTO and the other instruments of corporate protectionism, which traded away the interests of its blue-collar industrial base in favor of the GOP constituencies in Wall Street and red-state agribusiness. Nor is it possible to explain why Washington is indifferent to a relentlessly rising trade deficit, and the resulting foreign debt that has put the country's future in the hands of the central bank of China, while the Pentagon simulates war games with China as the enemy.
The media language we use to talk to each other about globalization hides its class structure. The press consistently talks about national "interest" without defining who exactly is getting what. Thus, American workers are told that the "Chinese" are taking their jobs. But the China threat is, in fact, another global business partnership -- this one between commissars who supply the cheap labor and the United States and other foreign capitalists who supply the technology and two-thirds of the capital used to finance China's exports. The rest of the world calls this "neoliberalism," a term unknown among America's media "internationalists."
The politics of the global marketplace are a one-party system. The opposition to Davos is unorganized globally. What might be called the Party of Porto Alegre -- the NGOs who meet at the same time in Brazil -- is politically marginal. The trade union movement's effort to organize the workers of the world is at best at a very early stage.
Still, there may be some bad new ahead for Davos. After a quarter of a century, the world is beginning to resist policies that have shifted wealth and power away from people who work for a living to those who invest. Scarcely a day goes by without a major riot somewhere in China, Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. In South America, anti-neoliberal parties have come to power in Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela and Argentina -- and already have slowed down the effort to extend NAFTA to the rest of the hemisphere. Very close to home, a leftist candidate is leading in the campaign for Mexico's next president.
But perhaps more important, Davos' chief champion -- the U.S. governing class -- is in trouble. The opposition to the war in Iraq has demonstrated the limits of America's willingness to send its children to die in order to force the world's cultures into one vast shopping mall. And the looming crisis of America's foreign debt will cramp the ability of our elites to use the countries' economic power to support their global corporate backers. The erosion of the American social contract -- already being reflected in stagnant wages, financial insecurity and collapsing health care system -- could soon force the governing class to pay more attention to Bloomington, Ill., than to Baghdad, Iraq.
Globalization will not go away. Improvements in communication and transportation will continue to make the world smaller for as far into the future as we can see. Nor will economic classes soon disappear. The question is, as always, who sets the rules and in whose interests? So although the parties at Davos may not be over, the rest of the world seems less willing to pay for them.
****************************
Jeff Faux is the founder and former president of the Economic Policy Institute and the author of the new book The Global Class War, a study of the impact of globalization abroad and on U.S. living standards and politics.
The world's rich and powerful are heading this week to their annual meeting in the plush mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland. Hosted by the great global corporations (Citigroup, Siemens, Microsoft, Nestlé, etc.), some 2000 CEOs, prominent politicians, pundits and international bureaucrats will network over great food, fine wine, good skiing and cozy evenings by the fire contemplating the world's future.
This is not a secret cabal; journalists will issue daily reports to the rest of us on the wit and informal charm of our financial betters. Rather, it is like the political convention of those who manage the global economy. Call it the Party of Davos.
All markets are systems of rules that determine what sort of people are winners and what sort are losers. Politics is largely conflict among the different sorts -- or classes -- over who gets what.
In stable societies, a social contract provides for enough wealth to trickle down to keep the lower orders from rebelling. Thus, in the 1950s, when Dwight Eisenhower's secretary of defense said that what was good for General Motors was good for America, most Americans -- including the United Auto Workers -- agreed. Within the boundaries of the U.S. economy, capital and labor needed each other.
But as corporations went global, the mutual dependence weakened. And in the absence of global democracy, their owners and top managers seized the opportunity to set the new rules without social constraints. The first head of the World Trade Organization called these new rules a "constitution for the global economy." It's a constitution that protects just one world citizen -- the corporate investor. It prohibits effective protections for the workers, consumers and the environment.
In America, as in most places, the party of Davos is bipartisan. It includes Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, Robert Rubin and Don Rumsfeld, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. (George Bush is also a member, but he doesn't like to travel). John Kerry is quoted as having called himself a "Davos" man.
Indeed, without reference to economic class, it is impossible to explain why Democratic elites championed NAFTA, the WTO and the other instruments of corporate protectionism, which traded away the interests of its blue-collar industrial base in favor of the GOP constituencies in Wall Street and red-state agribusiness. Nor is it possible to explain why Washington is indifferent to a relentlessly rising trade deficit, and the resulting foreign debt that has put the country's future in the hands of the central bank of China, while the Pentagon simulates war games with China as the enemy.
The media language we use to talk to each other about globalization hides its class structure. The press consistently talks about national "interest" without defining who exactly is getting what. Thus, American workers are told that the "Chinese" are taking their jobs. But the China threat is, in fact, another global business partnership -- this one between commissars who supply the cheap labor and the United States and other foreign capitalists who supply the technology and two-thirds of the capital used to finance China's exports. The rest of the world calls this "neoliberalism," a term unknown among America's media "internationalists."
The politics of the global marketplace are a one-party system. The opposition to Davos is unorganized globally. What might be called the Party of Porto Alegre -- the NGOs who meet at the same time in Brazil -- is politically marginal. The trade union movement's effort to organize the workers of the world is at best at a very early stage.
Still, there may be some bad new ahead for Davos. After a quarter of a century, the world is beginning to resist policies that have shifted wealth and power away from people who work for a living to those who invest. Scarcely a day goes by without a major riot somewhere in China, Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. In South America, anti-neoliberal parties have come to power in Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela and Argentina -- and already have slowed down the effort to extend NAFTA to the rest of the hemisphere. Very close to home, a leftist candidate is leading in the campaign for Mexico's next president.
But perhaps more important, Davos' chief champion -- the U.S. governing class -- is in trouble. The opposition to the war in Iraq has demonstrated the limits of America's willingness to send its children to die in order to force the world's cultures into one vast shopping mall. And the looming crisis of America's foreign debt will cramp the ability of our elites to use the countries' economic power to support their global corporate backers. The erosion of the American social contract -- already being reflected in stagnant wages, financial insecurity and collapsing health care system -- could soon force the governing class to pay more attention to Bloomington, Ill., than to Baghdad, Iraq.
Globalization will not go away. Improvements in communication and transportation will continue to make the world smaller for as far into the future as we can see. Nor will economic classes soon disappear. The question is, as always, who sets the rules and in whose interests? So although the parties at Davos may not be over, the rest of the world seems less willing to pay for them.
****************************
Jeff Faux is the founder and former president of the Economic Policy Institute and the author of the new book The Global Class War, a study of the impact of globalization abroad and on U.S. living standards and politics.
January 28, 2006
Israelis and Palestinians: Listening to the Words
In the aftermath of the Hamas electoral victory, there have been all sorts of dire predictions, as well as some hopeful ones. On the one hand, some say that like it took Nixon to go to China, like it took Menachem Begin to make peace with Anwar Sadat, that it will take Hamas to make peace with Israel. On the other, some predict renewed major conflict with the armed wing of Hamas, an escalation of violence and a renewed effort to wall off the West Bank and separate Israelis from Palestinians as permanently as possible.
Perhaps what we might want to do is listen first. Listen to what the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are saying. We might want to listen to what Hamas says, and what the Israeli government says.
And while we are listening, we need to watch what they all do. Then we will have a clearer idea of where all this is going.
Let's start with the average Israeli and Palestinian people speaking. Here, from the BBC, alternating between Palestinian and Israeli, is some of what they have to say:
Palestinian
Khaled Jaber, office manager
"Hamas winning is a good thing - it is the choice of the people. I think the future will be better under a Hamas government. There won't be any problems in the government as there were under Fatah. Religion is the manual for good government in the world and I think we shall see a good Hamas government."
Israeli
"We expected Hamas to do well because it won many seats in local polls. After Yasser Arafat's death, Fatah collapsed. It couldn't work cohesively, there were always problems. People became tired. As for Hamas, I'm not worried society will get more conservative. Hamas is focused on resistance against Israel and on fixing the economy."
Israeli
David Komer, soldier
"Hamas being in power concerns me. The world doesn't seem to have a problem with Hamas.
Now because they are a valid political party it makes it okay in the eyes of the world that they blew up buses. I won't be willing to negotiate with anyone that advocates the destruction of Israel."
Palestinian
Alla Abu Turk, marketing boss
"It doesn't matter what party governs - what matters is they need experience. I'm worried that Hamas don't have any experience in government and they will have to learn very quickly."
Israeli
Baruch Sangauker, chef
"Hamas and Fatah are one and the same. But we need to talk to Hamas and if they don't understand our position then we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. It's very important that we see whether we have a partner for peace with Hamas. But I am really not concerned that Hamas are in power."
Palestinian
Nehad Mahmoud, rights worker
"I support Hamas. They will bring new ideas to government. I like Hamas because they are the real resistance against Israel. Hamas are positive whereas Fatah are negative. Fatah were only interested in positions and money, not in the people. The international community will have to talk to Hamas if it wants to speak to the Palestinians."
Israeli
Rebecca Illulina, student
"I think it's pretty scary that Hamas have come to power. It will be a country run by terrorists and I feel very unsafe having them as neighbours. It's like al-Qaeda running the United States. I think the result is anti-democratic, it's the opposite of freedom. Even freedom needs boundaries and Hamas are outside those boundaries."
Palestinian
Barakat Barakat, civil servant
"Hamas are a change for good. Hamas won this election because people wanted a change.
They are the group that supports the Palestinian people and they are our best friend. Through their social services Hamas help the people. People asked yesterday who is for the Palestinian people and the answer came today: Hamas."
Israeli
Yoram Shilony, restaurant owner
"I am very happy that Hamas will be in government - they are so fanatical that maybe being in government will moderate them. If this happens, it will be good for Israel. Fatah said they wanted peace but all they made was war. Now Hamas speaks the truth and we know exactly what they think and what stands in front of us."
Palestinian
Akram Baker, business adviser
"This was an exercise in Palestinian democracy but Hamas are going to find the difference between governing and not governing very difficult. The writing was on the wall for Fatah for quite a while now. I think a lot of Hamas' support came from protest votes. People were tired of Fatah infighting and corruption."
Israeli
Matthew Israel, gift shop owner
"I think it's good for democracy that Hamas are in power, that's democracy. The only problem is that, like Nasser, they want to throw us in the sea. Now they are our enemy, and who can sit down and talk with the enemy? But if Hamas changes its way, then Israel should talk to them."
**************************
What the American administration has said:
"I have made it very clear, however, that a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal." (President Bush, Press Conference, January 26, 2006)
"I think the President made our view very clear yesterday. We don't deal with Hamas because Hamas is a terrorist organization....I think I indicated to you earlier in that statement we do not, and will not, give money to a terrorist organization." (Scott McClellan, White House Press Briefing, January 27, 2006)
How Hamas has responded:
"A senior Hamas leader has rejected demands that the Islamic militant group renounce violence, to prevent aid cuts for the Palestinian Authority. Ismail Haniya, who headed Hamas' election list, said they would not give in to "blackmail" by foreign donors." (BBC, January 28, 2006)
What the Israeli Government has said:
"Israel has said it will not deal with a Palestinian government including Hamas, following the Islamic militant group's sweeping victory in Palestinian polls. Israeli interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ruled out any talks with "an armed terror organisation that calls for Israel's destruction." (BBC, January 27, 2006)
***************************
I don't think that at this point in the process of digesting what the Hamas victory means, that we can expect anything less than what we have heard above. What really could we expect all these people to say otherwise? There is nothing new in any of these positions or viewpoints.
But I do take away a sense of two possibilities. One possibility -- all out civil war among the Palestinians with the Israelis brought in militarily -- could make the Intifada look like a minor scuffle. Or the other possibility, a slow moderation of each side coming to terms with the reality that the only sensible alternative is to find a way to peace. Hamas must know that it cannot destroy Israel, and the Israelis must know that it cannot continue to support huge settlements in so much of the West Bank.
I take some hope from something else Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli Prime Minister, said a few days ago, before the Hamas victory:
"In order to ensure the existence of a Jewish national home, we will not be able to continue ruling over the territories in which the majority of the Palestinian population lives."
Perhaps what we might want to do is listen first. Listen to what the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are saying. We might want to listen to what Hamas says, and what the Israeli government says.
And while we are listening, we need to watch what they all do. Then we will have a clearer idea of where all this is going.
Let's start with the average Israeli and Palestinian people speaking. Here, from the BBC, alternating between Palestinian and Israeli, is some of what they have to say:
Palestinian
Khaled Jaber, office manager
"Hamas winning is a good thing - it is the choice of the people. I think the future will be better under a Hamas government. There won't be any problems in the government as there were under Fatah. Religion is the manual for good government in the world and I think we shall see a good Hamas government."
Israeli
Ludmilla Mossovtsev, teacher
"It is not good that Hamas won the elections. These people are terrorists and now they are in the government. They blow up buses and should not be running a country. I want peace but I don't think that the Palestinian people want peace and they've shown this by voting for Hamas."
Palestinian
Felicia Barghouti, journalist"We expected Hamas to do well because it won many seats in local polls. After Yasser Arafat's death, Fatah collapsed. It couldn't work cohesively, there were always problems. People became tired. As for Hamas, I'm not worried society will get more conservative. Hamas is focused on resistance against Israel and on fixing the economy."
Israeli
David Komer, soldier
"Hamas being in power concerns me. The world doesn't seem to have a problem with Hamas.
Now because they are a valid political party it makes it okay in the eyes of the world that they blew up buses. I won't be willing to negotiate with anyone that advocates the destruction of Israel."
Palestinian
Alla Abu Turk, marketing boss
"It doesn't matter what party governs - what matters is they need experience. I'm worried that Hamas don't have any experience in government and they will have to learn very quickly."
Israeli
Baruch Sangauker, chef
"Hamas and Fatah are one and the same. But we need to talk to Hamas and if they don't understand our position then we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. It's very important that we see whether we have a partner for peace with Hamas. But I am really not concerned that Hamas are in power."
Palestinian
Nehad Mahmoud, rights worker
"I support Hamas. They will bring new ideas to government. I like Hamas because they are the real resistance against Israel. Hamas are positive whereas Fatah are negative. Fatah were only interested in positions and money, not in the people. The international community will have to talk to Hamas if it wants to speak to the Palestinians."
Israeli
Rebecca Illulina, student
"I think it's pretty scary that Hamas have come to power. It will be a country run by terrorists and I feel very unsafe having them as neighbours. It's like al-Qaeda running the United States. I think the result is anti-democratic, it's the opposite of freedom. Even freedom needs boundaries and Hamas are outside those boundaries."
Palestinian
Barakat Barakat, civil servant
"Hamas are a change for good. Hamas won this election because people wanted a change.
They are the group that supports the Palestinian people and they are our best friend. Through their social services Hamas help the people. People asked yesterday who is for the Palestinian people and the answer came today: Hamas."
Israeli
Yoram Shilony, restaurant owner
"I am very happy that Hamas will be in government - they are so fanatical that maybe being in government will moderate them. If this happens, it will be good for Israel. Fatah said they wanted peace but all they made was war. Now Hamas speaks the truth and we know exactly what they think and what stands in front of us."
Palestinian
Akram Baker, business adviser
"This was an exercise in Palestinian democracy but Hamas are going to find the difference between governing and not governing very difficult. The writing was on the wall for Fatah for quite a while now. I think a lot of Hamas' support came from protest votes. People were tired of Fatah infighting and corruption."
Israeli
Matthew Israel, gift shop owner
"I think it's good for democracy that Hamas are in power, that's democracy. The only problem is that, like Nasser, they want to throw us in the sea. Now they are our enemy, and who can sit down and talk with the enemy? But if Hamas changes its way, then Israel should talk to them."
**************************
What the American administration has said:
"I have made it very clear, however, that a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal." (President Bush, Press Conference, January 26, 2006)
"I think the President made our view very clear yesterday. We don't deal with Hamas because Hamas is a terrorist organization....I think I indicated to you earlier in that statement we do not, and will not, give money to a terrorist organization." (Scott McClellan, White House Press Briefing, January 27, 2006)
How Hamas has responded:
"A senior Hamas leader has rejected demands that the Islamic militant group renounce violence, to prevent aid cuts for the Palestinian Authority. Ismail Haniya, who headed Hamas' election list, said they would not give in to "blackmail" by foreign donors." (BBC, January 28, 2006)
What the Israeli Government has said:
"Israel has said it will not deal with a Palestinian government including Hamas, following the Islamic militant group's sweeping victory in Palestinian polls. Israeli interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ruled out any talks with "an armed terror organisation that calls for Israel's destruction." (BBC, January 27, 2006)
***************************
I don't think that at this point in the process of digesting what the Hamas victory means, that we can expect anything less than what we have heard above. What really could we expect all these people to say otherwise? There is nothing new in any of these positions or viewpoints.
But I do take away a sense of two possibilities. One possibility -- all out civil war among the Palestinians with the Israelis brought in militarily -- could make the Intifada look like a minor scuffle. Or the other possibility, a slow moderation of each side coming to terms with the reality that the only sensible alternative is to find a way to peace. Hamas must know that it cannot destroy Israel, and the Israelis must know that it cannot continue to support huge settlements in so much of the West Bank.
I take some hope from something else Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli Prime Minister, said a few days ago, before the Hamas victory:
"In order to ensure the existence of a Jewish national home, we will not be able to continue ruling over the territories in which the majority of the Palestinian population lives."
January 27, 2006
When Will American Women Stand Up for Peace?
Medea Benjamin asks in The Nation why American women are not front and center advocating for peace. Benjamon wants to know where the great tradition has gone of the "suffragettes who chained themselves to the White House fence for the right to vote;" where the women garment workers are "whose struggles for decent working conditions inspired the first International Women's Day in 1910;" where the women are who have "emulated Rosa Parks, risking their lives or livelihoods to confront the evils of racism."
Benjamin says: "Given their tradition of activism, why aren't American women today rising up against a government that dragged them into war with lies, that spies on their peaceful activities and diverts money from their children's schools or their mothers' nursing homes to pay for an immoral war?"
Perhaps we will find out where they are when they vote in November, late this year.
Benjamin says: "Given their tradition of activism, why aren't American women today rising up against a government that dragged them into war with lies, that spies on their peaceful activities and diverts money from their children's schools or their mothers' nursing homes to pay for an immoral war?"
Perhaps we will find out where they are when they vote in November, late this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)