BUSH STRAFES NEW ORLEANS
WHERE IS OUR HUEY LONG?
by Greg Palast
Friday, September 2, 2005
The National Public Radio news anchor was so excited I thought she'd piss on herself: the President of the United had flown his plane down to 1700 feet to get a better look at the flood damage! And there was a photo of our Commander-in-Chief taken looking out the window. He looked very serious and concerned.
That was yesterday. Today he played golf. No kidding.
I'm sure the people of New Orleans would have liked to show their appreciation for the official Presidential photo-strafing, but their surface-to-air missiles were wet.
There is nothing new under the sun. In 1927, a Republican President had his photo taken as the Mississippi rolled over New Orleans. Calvin Coolidge, "a little fat man with a notebook in his hand," promised to rebuild the state. He didn't. Instead, he left to play golf with Ken Lay or the Ken Lay railroad baron equivalent of his day.
In 1927, the Democratic Party had died and was awaiting burial. As depression approached, the coma-Dems, like Franklin Roosevelt, called for balancing the budget.
Then, as the waters rose, one politician finally said, roughly, "Screw this! They're lying! The President's lying! The rich fat cats that are drowning you will do it again and again and again. They lead you into imperialist wars for profit, they take away your schools and your hope and when you complain, they blame Blacks and Jews and immigrants. Then they push your kids under. I say, Kick'm in the ass and take your rightful share!"
Huey Long laid out a plan: a progressive income tax, real money for education, public works to rebuild Louisiana and America, an end to wars for empire, and an end to financial oligarchy. The waters receded, the anger did not, and Huey "Kingfish" Long was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1928.
At the time, Louisiana schools were free, but not the textbooks. Governor Long taxed Big Oil to pay for the books. Rockefeller's oil companies refused pay the textbook tax, so Long ordered the National Guard to seize Standard Oil's fields in the Delta.
Huey Long was called a "demagogue" and a "dictator." Of course. Because it was Huey Long who established the concept that a government of the people must protect the people, school, house, and feed them and give every man or woman a job who needs one.
Government, he said, "We The People," not plutocrats nor Halliburtons, must build bridges and levies to keep the waters from rising over our heads. All we had to do was share the nation's wealth we created as a nation. But that meant facing down what he called the "concentrations of monopoly power" to finance the needs of the public.
In other words, Huey Long founded the modern Democratic Party. Franklin Roosevelt and the party establishment, scared senseless of Long's ineluctable march to the White House, adopted his program, called it the New Deal, and later The New Frontier and the Great Society.
America and the party prospered.
America could use a Democratic Party again and there's a rumor it's alive -- somewhere.
And now is the moment, as it was in '27. As the bodies float in the streets of New Orleans, now is not the time for the Democrats to shirk and slink away, bleating they can't "politicize" this avoidable disaster.
Seventy-six years ago this week, Huey Long was shot down, assassinated at the age of 43. But the legacy of his combat remains, from Social Security to veterans' mortgage loans.
There is no such thing as a "natural" disaster. Hurricanes happen, but death comes from official neglect, from tax cuts for the rich that cut the heart out of public protection. The corpses in the street are victims of a class war in which only one side has a general.
Where is our Huey Long? America needs just one Kingfish to stand up and say that our nation must rid itself of the scarecrow with the idiot chuckle, who has left America broken and in danger while he plays tinker-toy Napoleon on other continents.
I realize that the middle of rising flood is a hell of a bad time to give Democrats swimming lessons; but it's act up now or we all go under.
September 04, 2005
September 03, 2005
Katrina As Inconvenience
After witnessing the Bush administration response to Katrina, after watching his quick superficial speeches, after seeing his visit to the disaster area, I have come to the conclusion that this whole thing is such a huge inconvenience to him and his handlers that they have had a really hard time reacting to it with any kind of honesty and sincerity.
Bush has been beset with his failures in Iraq and has been focussing his attention on shoring up his position on Iraq. He has been trying to figure out how to respond to the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon. He has been explaining how the Iraqi Constitution really is a good thing, and how well things are going over there. And how we are going to continue to fight the good fight, and not shirk our responsibilities.
Bush has also been trying to reinforce his position on privatizing social security, a battle he has been losing steadily.
I believe all these have Bush thinking about his legacy and worried about how all these things are playing out. He needed Katrina like he needed a hole in the head.
His reaction, and that of his cronies, has been slow, dull and unreal, precisely because they have hoped against all hope, from the beginning, that it could not possibly be this bad. What more could go wrong has been an underlying question or feeling. They have really had a hard time getting their minds around this one and how to react. The holes in the levees, which they claimed no one imagined, happened. And it feels like they happened to them, not to the people of New Orleans.
I believe this attitude, more than anything, has created the delay in getting help to thousands of people who need it.
I don't intend giving them any sympathy, but I believe this has all become overload for what is, at its most fundamental level, an incompetent government.
Bush has been beset with his failures in Iraq and has been focussing his attention on shoring up his position on Iraq. He has been trying to figure out how to respond to the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon. He has been explaining how the Iraqi Constitution really is a good thing, and how well things are going over there. And how we are going to continue to fight the good fight, and not shirk our responsibilities.
Bush has also been trying to reinforce his position on privatizing social security, a battle he has been losing steadily.
I believe all these have Bush thinking about his legacy and worried about how all these things are playing out. He needed Katrina like he needed a hole in the head.
His reaction, and that of his cronies, has been slow, dull and unreal, precisely because they have hoped against all hope, from the beginning, that it could not possibly be this bad. What more could go wrong has been an underlying question or feeling. They have really had a hard time getting their minds around this one and how to react. The holes in the levees, which they claimed no one imagined, happened. And it feels like they happened to them, not to the people of New Orleans.
I believe this attitude, more than anything, has created the delay in getting help to thousands of people who need it.
I don't intend giving them any sympathy, but I believe this has all become overload for what is, at its most fundamental level, an incompetent government.
Fox News Emboweled As Always
If you want to see what's wrong with this country and with this Republican administration, all you have to do is watch Fox News coverage of Katrina. Fox's coverage is knee-jerk apologia for Bush and his bungling response to Katrina. Fox's concentration on the looting and the law and order issues dominates its coverage.
This morning, while interviewing one of the victims, the Fox interviewer actually said there is a debate about why those people stayed in New Orleans.
And every chance it gets, Fox shows the footage of Bush walking toward those two black women in Mississippi with his shirtsleeves rolled up, and hugging them. Bush the hero.
Fox can't bring itself to tell the American people anything resembling the truth.
This morning, while interviewing one of the victims, the Fox interviewer actually said there is a debate about why those people stayed in New Orleans.
And every chance it gets, Fox shows the footage of Bush walking toward those two black women in Mississippi with his shirtsleeves rolled up, and hugging them. Bush the hero.
Fox can't bring itself to tell the American people anything resembling the truth.
September 02, 2005
The Mayor of New Orleans
Please take 12 minutes out of your life and listen to the Mayor of New Orleans in a radio interview
Hat-tip to PJB
Hat-tip to PJB
What We Are Not Talking About
The sight of armed American soldiers, mostly white, surrounding and containing the victims of Katrina in New Orleans, most of whom are black, and without water and food, is offensive and sickening.
The shoot-to-kill orders for looters in New Orleans, presumably most of whom are African-American, is indefensible. Police and soldiers need to defend themselves, but an open-ended order to shoot-to-kill is not acceptable. How many women with babies are stealing food and water from stores? Should they be shot first and asked questions later?
Hearing the head of FEMA, Mike Brown, say that he is not making a judgement about those people who decided to stay in New Orleans through the hurricane, reflects such a racist, elitist, and ignorant lack of understanding of American society that it is mind-boggling. What were they supposed to do? Walk hundreds of miles to safety? Most of them had no cars, no public transportation out. There were the unemployed, the elderly, the handicapped, the ill. What is the matter with someone who can think this way? Here is what he said: "Unfortunately, that's going to be attributable a lot to people who did not heed the advance warnings," Brown told CNN. "I don't make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans," he said.
A new report from the US Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, shows that 800,000 more Americans lacked health insurance in 2004, that the number of Americans living in poverty and the nation's poverty rate increased, and that median wages in America stayed unchanged for the second consecutive year, even as gas prices and inflation continued to climb.
According to this new report, African American households have the lowest median income, at $30,134 -- down by more than $2,000 since Bush took office; approximately 7.4 million African Americans lack health insurance, an increase of almost 770,000 people since 2000; and nearly 25 percent (9 million) of all African Americans lived in poverty in 2004, an increase of over 250,000 over the past two years.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement:
"Actions speak louder than words. The Republican Party's hollow rhetoric about reaching out to minority voters can't hide the fact that President Bush's failed leadership has driven more people onto the rolls of the uninsured, pushed more families into poverty, and driven down real workers' wages. Instead of finding solutions to the problems confronting American families, President Bush and his party have chosen a disastrous special interest-driven agenda highlighted by irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, disastrous deficits, and a risky Social Security scheme that would undermine the promise of retirement security for African American seniors. Democrats know that we can do better by balancing the budget and getting the economy working for everyone so that American families don't have to choose between a bag of groceries and a gallon of gas."
If these were tens of thousands of middle class and upper class white people suffering, this would not be happening. I have absolutely no proof of that, but I believe it in my heart more strongly than I can possibly say.
If the American people do not throw these people out in 2006 from the Congress, we deserve all that we get from here on out. If there is any African American left in this country after this, who votes for Bush, they are deluded beyond all help.
Mike Brown, Head of FEMA, The Peter Principle At Work
The shoot-to-kill orders for looters in New Orleans, presumably most of whom are African-American, is indefensible. Police and soldiers need to defend themselves, but an open-ended order to shoot-to-kill is not acceptable. How many women with babies are stealing food and water from stores? Should they be shot first and asked questions later?
Hearing the head of FEMA, Mike Brown, say that he is not making a judgement about those people who decided to stay in New Orleans through the hurricane, reflects such a racist, elitist, and ignorant lack of understanding of American society that it is mind-boggling. What were they supposed to do? Walk hundreds of miles to safety? Most of them had no cars, no public transportation out. There were the unemployed, the elderly, the handicapped, the ill. What is the matter with someone who can think this way? Here is what he said: "Unfortunately, that's going to be attributable a lot to people who did not heed the advance warnings," Brown told CNN. "I don't make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans," he said.
A new report from the US Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, shows that 800,000 more Americans lacked health insurance in 2004, that the number of Americans living in poverty and the nation's poverty rate increased, and that median wages in America stayed unchanged for the second consecutive year, even as gas prices and inflation continued to climb.
According to this new report, African American households have the lowest median income, at $30,134 -- down by more than $2,000 since Bush took office; approximately 7.4 million African Americans lack health insurance, an increase of almost 770,000 people since 2000; and nearly 25 percent (9 million) of all African Americans lived in poverty in 2004, an increase of over 250,000 over the past two years.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement:
"Actions speak louder than words. The Republican Party's hollow rhetoric about reaching out to minority voters can't hide the fact that President Bush's failed leadership has driven more people onto the rolls of the uninsured, pushed more families into poverty, and driven down real workers' wages. Instead of finding solutions to the problems confronting American families, President Bush and his party have chosen a disastrous special interest-driven agenda highlighted by irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, disastrous deficits, and a risky Social Security scheme that would undermine the promise of retirement security for African American seniors. Democrats know that we can do better by balancing the budget and getting the economy working for everyone so that American families don't have to choose between a bag of groceries and a gallon of gas."
If these were tens of thousands of middle class and upper class white people suffering, this would not be happening. I have absolutely no proof of that, but I believe it in my heart more strongly than I can possibly say.
If the American people do not throw these people out in 2006 from the Congress, we deserve all that we get from here on out. If there is any African American left in this country after this, who votes for Bush, they are deluded beyond all help.
Mike Brown, Head of FEMA, The Peter Principle At Work
Bush Will Make Katrina's Victims Suffer Again in October
In the end, there will be, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of victims of Katrina, surviving victims who will have lost everything: homes, jobs, possessions, and loved ones. They will, essentially, be bankrupt, unable to pay bills, debts, and mortgages.
George Bush will make them victims once again on October 17 of this year when his lovely little bankruptcy reform bill goes into effect. Despite the fact that there was an attempt made to insert an amendment to protect victims of natural disasters like Katrina, the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress voted it down.
Not only has the Bush administration prevented New Orleans from getting the money it needed to strengthen the levees, unless someone intervenes, it will now be directly responsible for the economic misery of Katrina's victims.
George Bush will make them victims once again on October 17 of this year when his lovely little bankruptcy reform bill goes into effect. Despite the fact that there was an attempt made to insert an amendment to protect victims of natural disasters like Katrina, the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress voted it down.
Not only has the Bush administration prevented New Orleans from getting the money it needed to strengthen the levees, unless someone intervenes, it will now be directly responsible for the economic misery of Katrina's victims.
September 01, 2005
Holding Bush Accountable
"Casual", "carelessness", "complacency" -- these are words used by the New York Times in describing George Bush's response to the national catastrophe known as Katrina.
The conservative Manchester Union-Leader, in describing Bush's response, uses words like "diffident detachment", and "unsuitable." One of their conclusions is: "One of the problems Katrina has exposed is not just the vulnerability of the Gulf's energy supplies but the need for a comprehensive energy plan that relies on more varied sources of energy."
Michael Chertoff, this morning on CNN, answered Soledad O'Brien's question about why the Department of Homeland Security has not set up some kind of registry of refugees so that families and friends could contact each other by saying it would happen eventually but that the government is busy rescuing people. But somehow, the Times-Picayune newspaper, based in ravaged New Orleans has been able to start a missing persons section on its website.
Haley Barbour, King of Mississippi, sloughed off pointed questions from Miles O'Brien of CNN about the slow government response, basically responded by saying that this is all "hard work." Sounds familiar, huh? Barbour also said he was not about to criticize the government. Barbour, the Governor of Mississippi, is never referred to as the former head of the Republican National Committee.
It is probably true that this is not the time to concentrate on what went wrong, but rather on what needs to be done to save the people who need to be saved, support the people who need to be supported, and recover the bodies of those who have died. But, at the same time, we must keep a clear record of how utterly unprepared the Bush government appears to have been for this disaster. The time has come to hold this government accountable and responsible for its ongoing awful policies and its stupid mistakes.
The right-wing is going to try to deflect this criticism by saying that liberals and progressives are blaming Bush for Katrina. That, of course, is idiotic. But we can hold Bush accountable for his incompetence and his inability to protect the American people here at home.
Here is a prime example:
Editor & Publisher has a piece which asks the question "Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? 'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues." The basic conclusion is that the money that was needed to strengthen the levees went to Iraq instead. The Bush government did not do what was necessary to make Americans secure here at home.
Contribute to the American Red Cross here.
August 31, 2005
Bush World
Corporate CEO compensation is skyrocketing up, regardless of the performance of the company the CEO runs.
Oil prices are surging up, peaking who knows where. Some say $100 a barrel.
Oil company profits are substantial. Some say obscene. Some want a Congressional investigation.
Gas prices at the pump are hurting the middle and working class in America and it will get worse.
The poverty rate is up to 12.7%, with 37.1 million Americans, a third of them children, living below the poverty rate, up 1.1 million people from the year before. This is the fourth consecutive year in a row that poverty has increased in George Bush's America. These are the latest figures from the US Census Bureau for 2004.
Here's a quote from the new Census Bureau report:
Real median household income showed no change between 2003 and 2004. Both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate increased between 2003 and 2004.
Oil prices are surging up, peaking who knows where. Some say $100 a barrel.
Oil company profits are substantial. Some say obscene. Some want a Congressional investigation.
Gas prices at the pump are hurting the middle and working class in America and it will get worse.
The poverty rate is up to 12.7%, with 37.1 million Americans, a third of them children, living below the poverty rate, up 1.1 million people from the year before. This is the fourth consecutive year in a row that poverty has increased in George Bush's America. These are the latest figures from the US Census Bureau for 2004.
Here's a quote from the new Census Bureau report:
Real median household income showed no change between 2003 and 2004. Both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate increased between 2003 and 2004.
As the inflation rate rose in 2004, the average American's real income stagnated.
Bankruptices are at an all time high.
Foreclosures are the highest ever.
Credit card debt is at an all-time high.
The national debt is at an all-time high. Each and every American owes $145,000.
The cost of education has soared and student loans are being cut.
Welcome to Bush World.
Katrina: Bush vs Clinton
Bill Clinton would already have been down there. He would not have hesitated, he would not have gone to give a speech comparing Iraq with World War II. He would not have flown to Washington. He would not have taken a month vacation, anyway. And he would be there now, walking with the people, sharing their pain, and sharing their grief. He would be a real, natural human being.
That Bush is waiting almost a week to go there is yet another reflection of his crude, lumbering nature, reminiscent of his halting, dopey response to 9/11. That he has not addressed the nation by now is shameful.
Where is our President? He is hunkered down with Rove trying to figure out what the best way is to respond to all this, so he looks good. Katrina could very well prove to be the tipping point of his Presidency.
That Bush is waiting almost a week to go there is yet another reflection of his crude, lumbering nature, reminiscent of his halting, dopey response to 9/11. That he has not addressed the nation by now is shameful.
Where is our President? He is hunkered down with Rove trying to figure out what the best way is to respond to all this, so he looks good. Katrina could very well prove to be the tipping point of his Presidency.
August 30, 2005
Is Bush Government At Work Helping to Spread AIDS?
Last summer, when I met and produced an American recording for Jean Paul Samputu, the Rwanda singer and dancer who won the Kora Award (like our Grammy award) in 2003, one of the many things he told me about central Africa involved Uganda, where he has lived, off and on, for many years. He said that there was a successful AIDS prevention program underway, partly as a result of Ugandan women simply saying to men: "No condom? No sex." It has reportedly resulted in a significant reduction in the spread of AIDS in Uganda.
Now, according to the UN Special Envoy, Stephen Lewis, working on the AIDS problem in Africa, the United States is insisting that the focus of AIDS prevention be on abstinence, rather than condoms. Uganda has an AIDS prevention program based on their ABC approach: Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Condoms. Lewis has reported that the supply of condoms is drying up because of the influence of American government pressure (in the thrall of the religious right, which opposes condom use) on the Ugandan government. He says: "Over the last eight to 10 months, there's been a very significant decline in the use of condoms, significantly orchestrated by the policies of government." His concerns have been confirmed by NGOs like the US-based Center for Health and Gender Equity.
Not surprisingly, Bush mouthpieces deny all of it. At the very least, would it be fair to believe that the Bush government is NOT ADVOCATING the use of condoms?
Now, according to the UN Special Envoy, Stephen Lewis, working on the AIDS problem in Africa, the United States is insisting that the focus of AIDS prevention be on abstinence, rather than condoms. Uganda has an AIDS prevention program based on their ABC approach: Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Condoms. Lewis has reported that the supply of condoms is drying up because of the influence of American government pressure (in the thrall of the religious right, which opposes condom use) on the Ugandan government. He says: "Over the last eight to 10 months, there's been a very significant decline in the use of condoms, significantly orchestrated by the policies of government." His concerns have been confirmed by NGOs like the US-based Center for Health and Gender Equity.
Not surprisingly, Bush mouthpieces deny all of it. At the very least, would it be fair to believe that the Bush government is NOT ADVOCATING the use of condoms?
The US vs the UN
Want to know how Bolton and the Bush government wants to make changes in the the Millenium Development Goals? Here are just a few of the changes demanded by John "Bull-in-a-China-Shop" Bolton.
From the Independent (UK)
The US vs The UN
By David Usborne in New York Published: 26 August 2005
America's controversial new ambassador to the United Nations is seeking to shred an agreement on strengthening the world body and fighting poverty intended to be the highlight of a 60th anniversary summit next month. In the extraordinary intervention, John Bolton has sought to roll back proposed UN commitments on aid to developing countries, combating global warming and nuclear disarmament.
Mr Bolton has demanded no fewer than 750 amendments to the blueprint restating the ideals of the international body, which was originally drafted by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.
The amendments are spelt out in a 32-page US version, first reported by the Washington Post and acquired yesterday by The Independent. The document is littered with deletions and exclusions. Most strikingly, the changes eliminate all specific reference to the so-called Millennium Development Goals, accepted by all countries at the last major UN summit in 2000, including the United States.
The Americans are also seeking virtually to remove all references to the Kyoto treaty and the battle against global warming. They are striking out mention of the disputed International Criminal Court and drawing a red line through any suggestion that the nuclear powers should dismantle their arsenals. Instead, the US is seeking to add emphasis to passages on fighting terrorism and spreading democracy.
Very quickly, Mr Bolton has given the answer to anyone still wondering whether his long and difficult journey to New York - President George Bush confirmed him to the post after the US Senate was unable to - would render him coy or cautious. Far from that, he seems intent on taking the UN by the collar and plainly saying to its face what America expects - and does not expect - from it.
To the dismay of many other delegations, the US has even scored out pledges that would have asked nations to "achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015". All references to the date or the percentage level are gone in the Bolton version.
Passages that look forward to a larger role for the General Assembly are gone. Rejected also is a promise to create a standing military capacity for UN peacekeeping.
This show of contempt from Washington and its new envoy comes at a time when Mr Annan has been severely weakened by allegations of widespread corruption, fraud and nepotism. The White House is aware, for example, that Mr Annan himself could be further undermined when investigators into corruption in the oil-for-food programme in Iraq issue their final report, probably just days before the summit itself, due to be held from 14 to 16 September.
more article:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article308269.ece
Guide to the differences in approach Millennium goals
What the UN wants
Specific references to the UN Millennium Development Goals which set targets to be achieved by 2015 on issues such as poverty, education, disease, trade and aid
What the US wants
References to the Millennium Development Goals systematically removed and replaced by vague references to the reduction of poverty, and a promise to reinforce the trend
The likely outcome
Unlikely to reach agreement. Developing countries will fight hard to keep references to Millennium Development Goals which were agreed by all UN members in 2000
Foreign aid
What the UN wants
To re-state development goals calling for wealthy countries, including the US, to contribute 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to aid
What the US wants
Deletion of all references to 0.7 per cent figure. Wants to link further increases to good housekeeping - and further liberalisation of markets
The likely outcome
Hard to see how there can be a compromise
Climate change
What the UN wants
Concerted global action to address climate change. Further negotiations to look beyond 2012 by broadening Kyoto agreement to include greater participation by developing and developed nations
What the US wants
Stresses energy efficiency and development of new technologies, and rejects global action plan. Rejects assertion that climate change is a long-term challenge that could potentially affect every part of the world
The likely outcome
Could be compromise, as US is prepared to recommit to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Nuclear disarmament
What the UN wants
An appeal to the five nuclear powers - Britain, US, France, China and Russia - to take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament
What the US wants
To shift focus to halting the spread of the world's deadliest weapons. Will not specifically recommit to working towards nuclear disarmament, although will recommit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
The likely outcome
Difficult to envisage agreement after negotiations on a five-year review of the NPT broke up in May without a result
International Criminal Court
What the UN wants
Commitment to end impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, including genocide, by co-operating with the International Criminal Court
What the US wants
No reference to International Criminal Court, whose statutes the Bush administration controversially withdrew from in 2002
The likely outcome
No agreement. America is out in the cold on this one, although the commitment of a number of other states to the court has been wavering under US pressure
Trade
What the UN wants
Help for developing countries to join the World Trade Organisation
What the US wants
Insistence that countries seeking to join the WTO must be willing and able to undertake WTO commitments. Baulks at "facilitating" entry of developing countries
The likely outcome
Big fight, with developing countries clamouring for access to markets. Probably no agreement
From the Independent (UK)
The US vs The UN
By David Usborne in New York Published: 26 August 2005
America's controversial new ambassador to the United Nations is seeking to shred an agreement on strengthening the world body and fighting poverty intended to be the highlight of a 60th anniversary summit next month. In the extraordinary intervention, John Bolton has sought to roll back proposed UN commitments on aid to developing countries, combating global warming and nuclear disarmament.
Mr Bolton has demanded no fewer than 750 amendments to the blueprint restating the ideals of the international body, which was originally drafted by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.
The amendments are spelt out in a 32-page US version, first reported by the Washington Post and acquired yesterday by The Independent. The document is littered with deletions and exclusions. Most strikingly, the changes eliminate all specific reference to the so-called Millennium Development Goals, accepted by all countries at the last major UN summit in 2000, including the United States.
The Americans are also seeking virtually to remove all references to the Kyoto treaty and the battle against global warming. They are striking out mention of the disputed International Criminal Court and drawing a red line through any suggestion that the nuclear powers should dismantle their arsenals. Instead, the US is seeking to add emphasis to passages on fighting terrorism and spreading democracy.
Very quickly, Mr Bolton has given the answer to anyone still wondering whether his long and difficult journey to New York - President George Bush confirmed him to the post after the US Senate was unable to - would render him coy or cautious. Far from that, he seems intent on taking the UN by the collar and plainly saying to its face what America expects - and does not expect - from it.
To the dismay of many other delegations, the US has even scored out pledges that would have asked nations to "achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015". All references to the date or the percentage level are gone in the Bolton version.
Passages that look forward to a larger role for the General Assembly are gone. Rejected also is a promise to create a standing military capacity for UN peacekeeping.
This show of contempt from Washington and its new envoy comes at a time when Mr Annan has been severely weakened by allegations of widespread corruption, fraud and nepotism. The White House is aware, for example, that Mr Annan himself could be further undermined when investigators into corruption in the oil-for-food programme in Iraq issue their final report, probably just days before the summit itself, due to be held from 14 to 16 September.
more article:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article308269.ece
Guide to the differences in approach Millennium goals
What the UN wants
Specific references to the UN Millennium Development Goals which set targets to be achieved by 2015 on issues such as poverty, education, disease, trade and aid
What the US wants
References to the Millennium Development Goals systematically removed and replaced by vague references to the reduction of poverty, and a promise to reinforce the trend
The likely outcome
Unlikely to reach agreement. Developing countries will fight hard to keep references to Millennium Development Goals which were agreed by all UN members in 2000
Foreign aid
What the UN wants
To re-state development goals calling for wealthy countries, including the US, to contribute 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to aid
What the US wants
Deletion of all references to 0.7 per cent figure. Wants to link further increases to good housekeeping - and further liberalisation of markets
The likely outcome
Hard to see how there can be a compromise
Climate change
What the UN wants
Concerted global action to address climate change. Further negotiations to look beyond 2012 by broadening Kyoto agreement to include greater participation by developing and developed nations
What the US wants
Stresses energy efficiency and development of new technologies, and rejects global action plan. Rejects assertion that climate change is a long-term challenge that could potentially affect every part of the world
The likely outcome
Could be compromise, as US is prepared to recommit to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Nuclear disarmament
What the UN wants
An appeal to the five nuclear powers - Britain, US, France, China and Russia - to take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament
What the US wants
To shift focus to halting the spread of the world's deadliest weapons. Will not specifically recommit to working towards nuclear disarmament, although will recommit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
The likely outcome
Difficult to envisage agreement after negotiations on a five-year review of the NPT broke up in May without a result
International Criminal Court
What the UN wants
Commitment to end impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, including genocide, by co-operating with the International Criminal Court
What the US wants
No reference to International Criminal Court, whose statutes the Bush administration controversially withdrew from in 2002
The likely outcome
No agreement. America is out in the cold on this one, although the commitment of a number of other states to the court has been wavering under US pressure
Trade
What the UN wants
Help for developing countries to join the World Trade Organisation
What the US wants
Insistence that countries seeking to join the WTO must be willing and able to undertake WTO commitments. Baulks at "facilitating" entry of developing countries
The likely outcome
Big fight, with developing countries clamouring for access to markets. Probably no agreement
August 29, 2005
Katrina Watch
Regardless of the level of destruction, watch for George Bush and his handlers to make substantial propaganda hay of Katrina. Normally, one would think that a President ought to be extremely responsive to such a national disaster, and, by all rights, he ought to.
In this case, however, watch for the little things that make it appear how heroic Bush is in all this, how much of the commander-in-chief he is. The photo-ops are fantastic. Bush will come "storming" back from his 5 week vacation.
Karl Rove is salivating over how much of a diversion Katrina might potentially be from the daily plague of failures that besets this President. He will exploit it as far as possible.
In this case, however, watch for the little things that make it appear how heroic Bush is in all this, how much of the commander-in-chief he is. The photo-ops are fantastic. Bush will come "storming" back from his 5 week vacation.
Karl Rove is salivating over how much of a diversion Katrina might potentially be from the daily plague of failures that besets this President. He will exploit it as far as possible.
Bolton's First Monkey Wrench
John Bolton, America's new Ambassador of Monkey Business at the United Nations, has thrown his first monkey wrench into the works.
There is a 36-page draft UN plan that will be presented to a conference in September that outlines large and significant changes as part of the biggest overhaul of the international organization since its founding over 50 years ago.
John "The Bull in the China Shop" Bolton has called for a halt to the whole thing and is demanding that 750 changes be made to the 36-page draft. Not 75 changes, not a few changes, not some suggestions, but 750 changes.
Read about it here.
There is a 36-page draft UN plan that will be presented to a conference in September that outlines large and significant changes as part of the biggest overhaul of the international organization since its founding over 50 years ago.
John "The Bull in the China Shop" Bolton has called for a halt to the whole thing and is demanding that 750 changes be made to the 36-page draft. Not 75 changes, not a few changes, not some suggestions, but 750 changes.
Read about it here.
August 28, 2005
"Critical Votes Loom for Hill Republicans"
When the Washington Post publishes a story like this one, it's easy to understand how people might think the Washington press lives in a cocoon, inside the beltway, in a self-absorbed world unconnected to the rest of us.
The poor Republicans on the Hill are tormented and agonizing over all the cuts they have to make in Medicaid, student loans, farm price supports, and food stamps. Writer Jonathan Weisman feels their pain.
And to make matters worse, these poor Republicans are being forced to do this by their own hand -- they passed legislation earlier this year that leaves them no choice. It's all so difficult and "tough," somewhat reminiscent of Bush's favorite phrase "it's hard work."
According to the Post, "For years, the party has embraced the rhetoric of small government while overseeing legislation that has helped boost federal spending by more than a third since the GOP took control of Congress 10 years ago. Now, Republican lawmakers will be faced with the tough votes needed to slow that growth and enact the first cuts in entitlement spending since 1997."
Reading the story, one might conclude that it's all about them. They have to cut student loans. They have to cut Medicaid. They have to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and exploration. They have to cut food stamps. They have to cut farm price supports. It's all so painful for them.
Not one word anywhere about the pain that students, and farmers, and America's elderly are feeling, but hey, aren't the Republicans doing the right thing? The Post doesn't seem to think its readers deserve to know why the Republicans are doing these painful things.
Not one word about tax cuts for the rich, and the resulting adverse effects on social spending.
Not one word about Iraq and the hundreds of billions wasted there, and how Americans are directly suffering, as a result.
Not one word about the bloated Defense Department and Homeland Security Department budgets which are sucking the American people dry.
Not one word about shrinking corporate taxes, and shrinking corporate pensions and health benefits, all of which directly hurt the working and middle classes.
The story goes into some detail about appearances and how the Republicans will be perceived, and how the Democrats will use certain GOP cuts to attack the Republicans, and how the Republicans are doing some little legislative corrections to make sure they are not perceived as hurting the poor, and how the Democrats will attack them anyway. It's all so unrelentingly pathetic and ingrown, devoid of any connection to real people's lives. It's all about them.
Uncritically, with no context or discussion of the possible relationship, the Washington Post says this: "Record high gasoline prices should ease passage of legislation to open Alaska's Arctic wilderness to oil drilling, a move that environmentalists have thwarted for decades."
In that one sentence alone, might we not have a much clearer understanding of why we are being robbed blind by higher gas prices? If nothing else, higher gas prices make for a very convenient excuse for oil companies to get their way on an issue they have been fighting environmental groups and their Congressional supporters for decades. But the Post reports this with a straight face.
Had the story been written about where the real pain will be felt, and about how the American people are continuing to be taken by these Congressional fakers, the headline would have read:
"Congress Prepares More Pain for the American People"
At least, Jonathan Weisman didn't write about his pain.
The poor Republicans on the Hill are tormented and agonizing over all the cuts they have to make in Medicaid, student loans, farm price supports, and food stamps. Writer Jonathan Weisman feels their pain.
And to make matters worse, these poor Republicans are being forced to do this by their own hand -- they passed legislation earlier this year that leaves them no choice. It's all so difficult and "tough," somewhat reminiscent of Bush's favorite phrase "it's hard work."
According to the Post, "For years, the party has embraced the rhetoric of small government while overseeing legislation that has helped boost federal spending by more than a third since the GOP took control of Congress 10 years ago. Now, Republican lawmakers will be faced with the tough votes needed to slow that growth and enact the first cuts in entitlement spending since 1997."
Reading the story, one might conclude that it's all about them. They have to cut student loans. They have to cut Medicaid. They have to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and exploration. They have to cut food stamps. They have to cut farm price supports. It's all so painful for them.
Not one word anywhere about the pain that students, and farmers, and America's elderly are feeling, but hey, aren't the Republicans doing the right thing? The Post doesn't seem to think its readers deserve to know why the Republicans are doing these painful things.
Not one word about tax cuts for the rich, and the resulting adverse effects on social spending.
Not one word about Iraq and the hundreds of billions wasted there, and how Americans are directly suffering, as a result.
Not one word about the bloated Defense Department and Homeland Security Department budgets which are sucking the American people dry.
Not one word about shrinking corporate taxes, and shrinking corporate pensions and health benefits, all of which directly hurt the working and middle classes.
The story goes into some detail about appearances and how the Republicans will be perceived, and how the Democrats will use certain GOP cuts to attack the Republicans, and how the Republicans are doing some little legislative corrections to make sure they are not perceived as hurting the poor, and how the Democrats will attack them anyway. It's all so unrelentingly pathetic and ingrown, devoid of any connection to real people's lives. It's all about them.
Uncritically, with no context or discussion of the possible relationship, the Washington Post says this: "Record high gasoline prices should ease passage of legislation to open Alaska's Arctic wilderness to oil drilling, a move that environmentalists have thwarted for decades."
In that one sentence alone, might we not have a much clearer understanding of why we are being robbed blind by higher gas prices? If nothing else, higher gas prices make for a very convenient excuse for oil companies to get their way on an issue they have been fighting environmental groups and their Congressional supporters for decades. But the Post reports this with a straight face.
Had the story been written about where the real pain will be felt, and about how the American people are continuing to be taken by these Congressional fakers, the headline would have read:
"Congress Prepares More Pain for the American People"
At least, Jonathan Weisman didn't write about his pain.
August 27, 2005
How Do We Actually Get Out Of Iraq?
While many progressives and liberals agree that America must get out of Iraq, there is not alot of agreement on just how we can do it.
Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004, offers his suggestions about how we actually get out of Iraq in the Washington Post yesterday (Friday, August 26, 2005).
Kevin Drum, in his Washington Monthly Political Animal blog, offers this in response to Clark:
CLARK AND IRAQ....As an admirer of Wes Clark, I read his proposal for Iraq in today's Washington Post with interest. Clark is opposed to setting a date for pulling out, and after the usual litany of criticisms of Bush adminstration policy he offers a plan of his own. Here are the highlights:
The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors....public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq.
On the political side....Constitution....no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias....Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward.
On the military side....train police and local justices....Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist....must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency....Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters....Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out.
Unfortunately, I agree with Matt Yglesias: none of this really seems very doable:
Would Iraq's neighbors really want to cooperate in such a venture? "[N]o private militias" would, of course, be fantastic, but how do you achieve that? "Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters," but do ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency want to go? You get the general idea.
Still, since the administration's current approach seems almost guaranteed to fail, Clark's plan is at least worth a try. Regardless of the details, though, I continue to think that any plan that doesn't include firm goals and deadlines — even though I recognize they wouldn't always be met — is less likely to succeed than one that does have them. That's Management 101.
So: we should implement Clark's plan, or something similar, but we should make the plan credible by attaching firm public metrics to it and insisting that we measure our success against them. I wouldn't hire a contractor to install a new kitchen without goals and schedules. Why does anyone think we should fight a war with less?
Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004, offers his suggestions about how we actually get out of Iraq in the Washington Post yesterday (Friday, August 26, 2005).
Kevin Drum, in his Washington Monthly Political Animal blog, offers this in response to Clark:
CLARK AND IRAQ....As an admirer of Wes Clark, I read his proposal for Iraq in today's Washington Post with interest. Clark is opposed to setting a date for pulling out, and after the usual litany of criticisms of Bush adminstration policy he offers a plan of his own. Here are the highlights:
The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors....public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq.
On the political side....Constitution....no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias....Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward.
On the military side....train police and local justices....Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist....must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency....Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters....Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out.
Unfortunately, I agree with Matt Yglesias: none of this really seems very doable:
Would Iraq's neighbors really want to cooperate in such a venture? "[N]o private militias" would, of course, be fantastic, but how do you achieve that? "Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters," but do ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency want to go? You get the general idea.
Still, since the administration's current approach seems almost guaranteed to fail, Clark's plan is at least worth a try. Regardless of the details, though, I continue to think that any plan that doesn't include firm goals and deadlines — even though I recognize they wouldn't always be met — is less likely to succeed than one that does have them. That's Management 101.
So: we should implement Clark's plan, or something similar, but we should make the plan credible by attaching firm public metrics to it and insisting that we measure our success against them. I wouldn't hire a contractor to install a new kitchen without goals and schedules. Why does anyone think we should fight a war with less?
August 26, 2005
The American Legion Sounds Like the Communist Chinese Central Committee
Both George Bush, who never fought for his country, and the American Legion, with a membership consisting of some men and women who have fought for their country, seem to have no clue what the men and women who have died fighting for their country have died for.
In Idaho, at a speech on Wednesday, August 24, George Bush seemed to be saying that only Americans who agree with him are worth recognizing and praising, and that Americans who disagree and protest are not worthy and that their very citizenship is in question.
Here is what Bush said:
There are few things in life more difficult than seeing a loved one go off to war. And here in Idaho, a mom named Tammy Pruett -- (applause) -- I think she's here -- (laughter) -- knows that feeling six times over. (Applause.) Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard -- Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff. Last year, her husband Leon and another son, Eren, returned from Iraq, where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul. Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- "I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country. And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in." America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts. (Applause.)
I don't think Bush can possibly explain how "a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in" is better than living a peaceful life in a free country. But his message is clear. For Bush, there are the good families and the bad families. Cindy Sheehan's poor son is part of a bad family. America doesn't live in freedom because of Sheehan and her son, but because of people like the Pruetts. Here is what Bush had to say about Sheehan: "She doesn't represent the view of a lot of families." Nuff said...Bush shoots first, asks questions later...Cindy Sheehan and her bad family are history. Doesn't he have a clue about what's happening out here? Or he does, and simply doesn't care?
In Salt Lake City, the Commander of the American Legion, in his address to that organization's convention, basically said that protesting the Iraqi war should not be permitted. I'd like to suggest to this pinhead that his organization is not called the Communist Legion or the Nazi Legion, but the American Legion. I'd like to remind him that the dead Americans who are not able to be living members of the American legion died precisely so that Americans can oppose the war and can oppose their government. What kind of an idiot is leading the American Legion? Is there any member of the American legion who's going to stand up and have some spine and correct this nitwit?
Here is what he actually said, from Editor & Publisher:
"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.
The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."
In his speech, Cadmus declared: "It would be tragic if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect would be used against their successors today as they battle terrorists bent on our destruction.”
He explained, "No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies." This might suggest to some, however, that American freedoms are worth dying for but not exercising.
These people aren't Americans. Real patriotic Americans don't talk like this, and they don't think like this. This is a totalitarian mentality. It's the kind of behavior we used to expect from Soviet Communists. It's the kind of thing we hear in the news out of Communist China. Who are these people and where did they come from? Has there been a slow anti-American, anti-democratic infiltration of the American Legion?
The American Legion does not see that an American can support the troops and respect their sacrifices, and still oppose the war, criticize the shame of the lies that brought us to that war, and condemn the chickenhawk President who told those lies.
What the American Legion proposes is the kind of blind allegiance that veterans around America should condemn. It's reminiscent of another blind allegiance that brought the world a war that killed over 20 million people.
In Idaho, at a speech on Wednesday, August 24, George Bush seemed to be saying that only Americans who agree with him are worth recognizing and praising, and that Americans who disagree and protest are not worthy and that their very citizenship is in question.
Here is what Bush said:
There are few things in life more difficult than seeing a loved one go off to war. And here in Idaho, a mom named Tammy Pruett -- (applause) -- I think she's here -- (laughter) -- knows that feeling six times over. (Applause.) Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard -- Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff. Last year, her husband Leon and another son, Eren, returned from Iraq, where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul. Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- "I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country. And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in." America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts. (Applause.)
I don't think Bush can possibly explain how "a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in" is better than living a peaceful life in a free country. But his message is clear. For Bush, there are the good families and the bad families. Cindy Sheehan's poor son is part of a bad family. America doesn't live in freedom because of Sheehan and her son, but because of people like the Pruetts. Here is what Bush had to say about Sheehan: "She doesn't represent the view of a lot of families." Nuff said...Bush shoots first, asks questions later...Cindy Sheehan and her bad family are history. Doesn't he have a clue about what's happening out here? Or he does, and simply doesn't care?
In Salt Lake City, the Commander of the American Legion, in his address to that organization's convention, basically said that protesting the Iraqi war should not be permitted. I'd like to suggest to this pinhead that his organization is not called the Communist Legion or the Nazi Legion, but the American Legion. I'd like to remind him that the dead Americans who are not able to be living members of the American legion died precisely so that Americans can oppose the war and can oppose their government. What kind of an idiot is leading the American Legion? Is there any member of the American legion who's going to stand up and have some spine and correct this nitwit?
Here is what he actually said, from Editor & Publisher:
"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.
The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."
In his speech, Cadmus declared: "It would be tragic if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect would be used against their successors today as they battle terrorists bent on our destruction.”
He explained, "No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies." This might suggest to some, however, that American freedoms are worth dying for but not exercising.
These people aren't Americans. Real patriotic Americans don't talk like this, and they don't think like this. This is a totalitarian mentality. It's the kind of behavior we used to expect from Soviet Communists. It's the kind of thing we hear in the news out of Communist China. Who are these people and where did they come from? Has there been a slow anti-American, anti-democratic infiltration of the American Legion?
The American Legion does not see that an American can support the troops and respect their sacrifices, and still oppose the war, criticize the shame of the lies that brought us to that war, and condemn the chickenhawk President who told those lies.
What the American Legion proposes is the kind of blind allegiance that veterans around America should condemn. It's reminiscent of another blind allegiance that brought the world a war that killed over 20 million people.
August 25, 2005
Canada Feeling the Effects of Its Bully Neighbor
When it comes to being neighborly, the United States government, as manhandled and abused by George Bush and his gang of miscreants, is anything but. It certainly doesn't pay to be our neighbor to the north, Canada. There are no such thing as special favors or extra perks because Canada is our neighbor. We treat them just like everyone else. In fact, we may even treat them more harshly because their natural resources are so close right next door.
All you have to do is look at how our government behaves toward Canada on issues of trade like beef, water, steel, and softwood lumber. Simply put, we are bullies. We stampede the NAFTA agreement into reality and then, when it suits us, we ignore it.
Here's an example of how injurious NAFTA is to Canada: The American company, United Parcel Service, under one insane NAFTA clause, is now suing the Canadian national postal service because it believes the Canadian postal service is interfering with UPS' business in Canada. That's just about as crazy as Al-Queda suing the Department fo Homeland Security because it is interfering with Al-Queda's activities in the US. What it amounts to, of course, is a simple American corporate power grab in a foreign country, using what is really a corporate vehicle to do it, NAFTA. CAFTA is no different in its corporate impact.
The dispute between Canada and the US regarding Canadian lumber exports is just as bad. Despite NAFTA rulings in favor of Canada against the punitive tariffs that the US slapped on it for its softwood lumber imports into the US, the Bush administration is continuing its hardline and refusing to lift the tariffs. Here's the latest editorial about this issue from the Toronto Star.
All you have to do is look at how our government behaves toward Canada on issues of trade like beef, water, steel, and softwood lumber. Simply put, we are bullies. We stampede the NAFTA agreement into reality and then, when it suits us, we ignore it.
Here's an example of how injurious NAFTA is to Canada: The American company, United Parcel Service, under one insane NAFTA clause, is now suing the Canadian national postal service because it believes the Canadian postal service is interfering with UPS' business in Canada. That's just about as crazy as Al-Queda suing the Department fo Homeland Security because it is interfering with Al-Queda's activities in the US. What it amounts to, of course, is a simple American corporate power grab in a foreign country, using what is really a corporate vehicle to do it, NAFTA. CAFTA is no different in its corporate impact.
The dispute between Canada and the US regarding Canadian lumber exports is just as bad. Despite NAFTA rulings in favor of Canada against the punitive tariffs that the US slapped on it for its softwood lumber imports into the US, the Bush administration is continuing its hardline and refusing to lift the tariffs. Here's the latest editorial about this issue from the Toronto Star.
One thing is certain. If the Bush regime feels it is in the interest of its corporate clients to continue to be a bad neighbor, it will do so religiously.
August 24, 2005
Smorgasbord of Sleaze, Part III
The US government has rejected an independent report that says there is no evidence that Iran has been working on nuclear weapons. How reminiscent is that? The US insistence that Iraq was developing nuclear arms was proven false by every independent investigation prior to the invasion, bu the US government persisted, even to the extent of using a completely phony report of Iraqi purchase of enriched uranium from Niger. Why should the Bush government behave any differently when it comes to Iran, one of the axis of evil countries?
***********************
Pat Robertson, that shining example of Christian love, has called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.
************************
Remember the promises of debt relief to poor countries made by the G8 in Scotland? They turn out to be a crock.
***********************
When the White House announced Bush's summer reading list, they did so seriously, as if most people would actually believe the Orwellian propaganda that it was. They really do want us to think that this empty vessel of a President is really a scholarly sort who reads thick books on history and science.
******************
Lance Armstrong took a 17-mile bike ride with Bush and never said a word about Iraq. Just after he won his historic seventh Tour de France, this is what he had to say about Bush's Iraq war: "The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism." Was keeping silent about anything political in nature the trade-off for his having a chance to bike with the Prez and then praise him for his physical prowess? Whatever the deal, Lance Armstrong's reputation just took a big hit in my book.
**********************
***********************
Pat Robertson, that shining example of Christian love, has called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.
************************
Remember the promises of debt relief to poor countries made by the G8 in Scotland? They turn out to be a crock.
***********************
When the White House announced Bush's summer reading list, they did so seriously, as if most people would actually believe the Orwellian propaganda that it was. They really do want us to think that this empty vessel of a President is really a scholarly sort who reads thick books on history and science.
******************
Lance Armstrong took a 17-mile bike ride with Bush and never said a word about Iraq. Just after he won his historic seventh Tour de France, this is what he had to say about Bush's Iraq war: "The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism." Was keeping silent about anything political in nature the trade-off for his having a chance to bike with the Prez and then praise him for his physical prowess? Whatever the deal, Lance Armstrong's reputation just took a big hit in my book.
**********************
August 23, 2005
Bush Braggadocio Has No Limits
Bush is a consummate braggart. At the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Salt Lake City yesterday, he let loose again with more of his exaggerated muscle-flexing, his bragging bloviation, and his appeals to the basest instincts of the American people.
He bragged that his administration has increased veteran's benefits more in his first four years, than Clinton did in his entire eight years. Of course, what he did not mention is that his Iraq war, with almost 2000 dead American soldiers and 11,000 American wounded, is the reason he has had to raise veteran's benefits. And he also didn't mention that he has raised veterans benefits only after being dragged kicking and screaming by the Republicans in Congress, as well as veterans organizations. He also didn't mention that in the previous eight years the only major conflict the United States engaged in (Bosnia) resulted in no American soldiers being killed.
Wrapping himself in the flag yet again, he just had to thank the VFW for supporting the flag desecration constitutional amendment passed by the House of Representatives and now waiting in the US Senate. Why not a constitutional amendment protecting copies of the US Constitution from being burned in protest, or copies of the Declaration of Independence, or copies of the Bill of Rights? Before he died, my father, who was a company commander in WWII and liberated a concentration camp in Wels, Austria, was appalled when this amendment was first proposed. He said: "My men died in France, Germany, and Austria defending the right of Americans to burn their flag in protest of anything they want." Why is it that chickenhawk fakers like Bush and Cheney are the ones who wrap themselves in the flag so easily?
Vice President Cheney, a few days ago in a speech before another veterans group, compared himself to George Washington and these times to the darkest days of the American Revolution. In this speech to the VFW, Bush links 9/11 and his Iraq war to "the shores of Normandy and the snows of Korea." He proves yet again Samuel Johnson's apt adage that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson elaborates fittingly: "Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight." (in the Patriot, 1774)
He bragged that his administration has increased veteran's benefits more in his first four years, than Clinton did in his entire eight years. Of course, what he did not mention is that his Iraq war, with almost 2000 dead American soldiers and 11,000 American wounded, is the reason he has had to raise veteran's benefits. And he also didn't mention that he has raised veterans benefits only after being dragged kicking and screaming by the Republicans in Congress, as well as veterans organizations. He also didn't mention that in the previous eight years the only major conflict the United States engaged in (Bosnia) resulted in no American soldiers being killed.
Wrapping himself in the flag yet again, he just had to thank the VFW for supporting the flag desecration constitutional amendment passed by the House of Representatives and now waiting in the US Senate. Why not a constitutional amendment protecting copies of the US Constitution from being burned in protest, or copies of the Declaration of Independence, or copies of the Bill of Rights? Before he died, my father, who was a company commander in WWII and liberated a concentration camp in Wels, Austria, was appalled when this amendment was first proposed. He said: "My men died in France, Germany, and Austria defending the right of Americans to burn their flag in protest of anything they want." Why is it that chickenhawk fakers like Bush and Cheney are the ones who wrap themselves in the flag so easily?
Vice President Cheney, a few days ago in a speech before another veterans group, compared himself to George Washington and these times to the darkest days of the American Revolution. In this speech to the VFW, Bush links 9/11 and his Iraq war to "the shores of Normandy and the snows of Korea." He proves yet again Samuel Johnson's apt adage that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson elaborates fittingly: "Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight." (in the Patriot, 1774)
August 22, 2005
Duct Tape and Tire Inflation
Washington's answer to chemical and biological attacks was to advise Americans to use duct tape on our windows. Now, the answer from Washington regarding what we can do about high oil prices is to inflate our tires properly.
In a silly, thin piece entitled Politicians Have Little to Offer To Ease Anguish of Gas Prices, we are informed that no one in Washington really has any answers to our oil supply and price problems, and that we should travel less, inflate our tires properly, and carpool. Is this really news? Does anyone in the United States believe anymore that Washington is really interested, much less capable, of solving our energy problems?
Does the Washington Post actually think it's going to get any reasonable or creative answer from the usual suspects like the Heritage Foundation, or a Republican Congresswoman from Kentucky who is whining that it's costing her too much to fill up her SUV? What about Senator John Kerry's suggestion that George Bush take a harder line with Saudi Arabia? Right, like that is really going to happen. Maybe next time he and the new King hold hands, Bush can whisper in his ear something about taking it easy on us.
Republican of New York, Vito Fottella, wants to make sure there is no price gauging going on, despite the fact that the oil companies profits are bloated, and despite the fact that no previous investigations have ever found any price gouging. Surprise, surprise. I suppose it all depends on what one views as profit gouging. How much is too much? It's only our money anyway. And besides, Bush and Cheney don't have to pay for gas, or home heating oil, or propane, or diesel, or kerosene. When Vito is told, nope, no price gouging, that will end his quest for an answer on behalf of us citizens. he will have done his job.
In response to one proposal to roll back the gasoline tax (a mere 18.4 cents per gallon), someone from AAA points out that there is no guarantee the oil companies would pass even that small savings on to the consumer. No kidding?
And finally we have another Republican, Rep. Bob Beauprez from Colorado, who offers this lie: "I wish I could say there is a quick fix, but there is not...everybody is feeling the pinch."
Telegram to Bob -- NOT everyone is feeling the pinch. This kind of "pinch" is felt mostly by the millions of low-wage families who live on the edge of financial ruin on a daily basis. For them, it's not a pinch, but a whack in the head. Bob and his friends who drive Lexus and Cadillac SUVs, and who pay $100,000 a year dues to belong to country clubs, don't feel the pinch.
The Washington Post gives short shrift to the one group it talked to that might have offered more insight to its readers than their rogues gallery of Republicans did. Brendan Bell, an energy analyst for that group, the Sierra Club, is quoted as saying: "The big problem is we did not make the right decisions 10 years ago."
How much you want to bet that Brendan Bell actually spelled out what those bad decisions were, but that somehow the Post ran out of room to list them?
In a silly, thin piece entitled Politicians Have Little to Offer To Ease Anguish of Gas Prices, we are informed that no one in Washington really has any answers to our oil supply and price problems, and that we should travel less, inflate our tires properly, and carpool. Is this really news? Does anyone in the United States believe anymore that Washington is really interested, much less capable, of solving our energy problems?
Does the Washington Post actually think it's going to get any reasonable or creative answer from the usual suspects like the Heritage Foundation, or a Republican Congresswoman from Kentucky who is whining that it's costing her too much to fill up her SUV? What about Senator John Kerry's suggestion that George Bush take a harder line with Saudi Arabia? Right, like that is really going to happen. Maybe next time he and the new King hold hands, Bush can whisper in his ear something about taking it easy on us.
Republican of New York, Vito Fottella, wants to make sure there is no price gauging going on, despite the fact that the oil companies profits are bloated, and despite the fact that no previous investigations have ever found any price gouging. Surprise, surprise. I suppose it all depends on what one views as profit gouging. How much is too much? It's only our money anyway. And besides, Bush and Cheney don't have to pay for gas, or home heating oil, or propane, or diesel, or kerosene. When Vito is told, nope, no price gouging, that will end his quest for an answer on behalf of us citizens. he will have done his job.
In response to one proposal to roll back the gasoline tax (a mere 18.4 cents per gallon), someone from AAA points out that there is no guarantee the oil companies would pass even that small savings on to the consumer. No kidding?
And finally we have another Republican, Rep. Bob Beauprez from Colorado, who offers this lie: "I wish I could say there is a quick fix, but there is not...everybody is feeling the pinch."
Telegram to Bob -- NOT everyone is feeling the pinch. This kind of "pinch" is felt mostly by the millions of low-wage families who live on the edge of financial ruin on a daily basis. For them, it's not a pinch, but a whack in the head. Bob and his friends who drive Lexus and Cadillac SUVs, and who pay $100,000 a year dues to belong to country clubs, don't feel the pinch.
The Washington Post gives short shrift to the one group it talked to that might have offered more insight to its readers than their rogues gallery of Republicans did. Brendan Bell, an energy analyst for that group, the Sierra Club, is quoted as saying: "The big problem is we did not make the right decisions 10 years ago."
How much you want to bet that Brendan Bell actually spelled out what those bad decisions were, but that somehow the Post ran out of room to list them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)