Tierra del Ciego

Feudalism

2007-10-25T09:37:00.000-04:00

Want to know the direction that American society is headed? Pull out any 7th grade world history textbook and find the chapter on the Middle Ages. More accurately, look at our own history from the late 19th century. Over one hundred years ago there was no such thing as an American 'middle class', per se. Anything resembling the middle class was more of a 'professional' class: doctors, lawyers, small businessmen (aka 'the merchant class'), etc. The vast majority of people inhabited the working class. At the very top were the 'robber barons' of the guilded age. The income tax didn't even exist yet.

During the first half of the 20th century, the pendulum swung slowly but steadily toward more income equality. First the reform movement, then the beginning of the federal income tax, the New Deal, the rise of labor unions and the War on Poverty all contributed to income equality that reached it's high point in the early 1970s. In 1970, the bottom 80% of income earners in the U.S. - basically the entire middle class and the poor - earned 56.8% of aggregate national income and the top 5% earned 16.6%. In 2006, the bottom 80% earned 49.4% and the top 5% earned 22.3% (source: U.S. Census bureau). So, over the last 36 years, the vast majority of Americans have gone from earning a fair majority of aggregate income to earning slightly less than half. This combined with the steady erosion of the social 'safety net' over the last 25 years, the steep rise in costs for healthcare and education all portend a rather grim future for almost all Americans - and their children.

In Salon.com today, Robert Reich has touched upon this as it relates to changes in tax policy over the last 50 years. He also points out that the supposedly more 'populist' Democratic party probably won't do much about it:

"At the very least, you might think that Democrats would do something about the anomaly in the tax code that treats the earnings of private-equity and hedge-fund managers as capital gains rather than ordinary income, and thereby taxes them at 15 percent -- lower than the tax rate faced by many middle-class Americans. But Senate Democrats recently backed off a proposal to do just that. Why? It turns out that Democrats are getting more campaign contributions these days from hedge-fund and private-equity partners than Republicans are getting. In the run-up to the 2006 election, donations from hedge-fund employees were running better than 2-to-1 Democratic. The party doesn't want to bite the hands that feed." (Salon.com 10/25/07)

Obviously, at this point, neither party in this country is on the side of the shrinking middle class, despite what they say.

Maybe this trend will stop and even slowly reverse itself in the years and decades ahead. If history is any guide, as was the case a hundred years ago, the trend won't reverse without a certain measure of violence and bloodshed. Hopefully, the Democrats or some, yet to be, third party will live up to it's populist rhetoric and forestall this need.

Jon Stewart Interviews "Mrs. Vader"

2007-10-19T17:00:00.000-04:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Comcast Internet Traffic Blocking Uncovered

2007-10-19T16:21:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press (yes, THAT AP!), proving that 'old media' is still alive and kicking, discovered that Comcast is blocking certain types of Internet traffic. Through good old fashioned investigative journalism, reporter Peter Svensson discovered the traffic blocking scheme.

This piece from 'the Machinist' blog on Salon.com does a great job of explaining what Comcast is doing, how and why. Long story short, they're blocking peer-to-peer file sharing traffic, whether or not the material is copyrighted.

This only serves to strengthen the argument for the passage of definitive and enforceable Net Neutrality legislation on the federal level.

Insuring Defeat

2007-10-18T10:46:00.000-04:00

By vetoing Congress's SCHIP renewal bill 2 weeks ago, Bush seems to be making a real effort to increase or at least solidify his current 70-ish percent 'disapproval' rating with the citizenry. In Salon.com, Walter Shapiro opined that this 'battle' is only part of the entire healthcare 'war' that is raging in the country and that Bush and especially those Congressional Republicans choosing to stand by him on this issue will be in trouble as the 2008 election rolls around.

Also in Salon.com, news editor Joan Walsh, cited yet another 'no holds barred' right-wing attack campaign on a family who dared to speak publicly about the SCHIP issue. She states what is increasingly becoming obvious, that the O'Reilly's and Malkins of the world are, like their increasingly irrelevant standard bearer, becoming unimportant. And Ann Coulter? Right now she's probably taken about as seriously as Vince McMahon. Like so many 'Baby Face' Finsters, these folks seem unbeatable or scary until you realize that you can simply pick them up and put them back into their cribs.

To put this in larger context, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, was interviewed on WNYC's Leonard Lopate program on 10/16/07. He spoke about his latest book, The Conscience of a Liberal, that discusses the rise and fall of the New Deal, the War on Poverty and how the socio-political pendulum may be swinging back to the left. Listen to the interview here:

Bush & Co. don't seem to notice this and their actions are actually accelerating the pendulum.

Everything Old is New Again

2007-10-16T14:06:00.000-04:00

Look at this picture and think about it for a minute. On the left, of course, is Vladimir Putin, semi-autocratic President of the increasingly un-democratic Russian Federation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran is on the right. These two leaders are in attendance at a summit meeting of Caspian Sea nations this week. Russia and Iran both border the oil-rich Caspian Sea. This is the first time any Soviet/Russian head of state has visited Tehran since Stalin was at the Tehran conference during WWII, by the way. This is the same Putin that George Bush 'looked in the eye' and dubbed to be someone 'I can work with'. OK, whatever...

To a large extent, this picture represents the end result of a half century of mistakes and miscalculations in U.S. foreign policy. Beginning with the CIA backed coup of Mohammed Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Iranian leader, in 1953 and the placement in power of Shah Reza Pahlavi, the "Shah of Iran". This coup was orchestrated by the U.S. to insure an Iranian government that was 'friendly' to western petroleum companies. Mosaddeq actually had the gall to nationalize the Iranian petroleum industry, so that Iran itself might actually profit from the oil under it's own soil instead of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company - later renamed British Petroleum in 1954. How dare he. If these links to Wikipedia articles are bothersome to the anti-Wikipedi-ites out there, here's a link to a CIA produced article on the topic. Rest assured, many more Iranians are aware of this little piece of history than are Americans. No surprise there.

Fast forward past the 1979 Islamic revolution and hostage crisis in Iran, to the Iran-Iraq war. The Iran-Iraq war resulted in over 1 million casualties on each side. During this war in the 1980's, we backed Saddam Hussein against Iran (see famous Rumsfeld-Hussein meeting at left). We even supplied him with the technology to produce chemical weapons, which he was not shy about using against the Iranians and the Kurds alike. I can assure you that not too many Iranians are unaware of this little piece of history either.

Now let's look at Russia. Recently, I was fortunate enough to see ex-Senator Bill Bradley speak at a conference and he took some questions. One of the questioners asked him what world leader he met who was the most impressive. Without hesitation, he said Mikhail Gorbachev. He went on to describe how Gorbachev had the vision to realize that the Soviet Union was being crushed under it's own weight and had to be dismantled. Senator Bradley then described a recent meeting with him, where Gorbachev described a meeting with Jim Baker when he agreed to withdraw all Soviet military forces from the eastern-bloc nations in exchange for one thing: that NATO not be allowed to expand into these nations. Bradley then went on to remind us how we went back on that promise during the 1990's against the protestations of Yeltsin and now, more forcefully, of Putin.

The reason Gorbachev knew this was necesary is because of Russia's centuries old xenophobic nature. They have always been fearful of outsiders invading the 'motherland' and our NATO expansion among other factors, was fertile ground for an ultra-nationalist like Putin to amass power and become uncooperative to our foreign policy goals.

So, Russia and Iran are only two examples of the dozens of countries that we've pushed around, lied to or otherwise screwed over in the past fifty or so years alone. Maybe this picture makes more sense now.

Green and Mean

2007-10-15T14:04:00.000-04:00

***I originally posted this in August 2006 and am re-posting it in honor of Blog Action Day, focusing on environmental issues***

I live in New York City and have traveled to Europe and noticed that almost everywhere there, buildings, transportation, almost everything is designed to save energy, water and lessen environmental impacts. In comparison, during the recent heat wave in New York, many retailers were leaving their doors open, spilling air-conditioned air onto the sidewalks. Most often this is mandated by the corporate policy of the retailers' parent companies.
I travel about the city by bicycle about half the time and mass transit the other half. Bicycle transportation is more noticeable in New York than anywhere else in North America, yet is dwarfed by the ubiquity of it in most European cities. In New York City, about 115,000 people a day commute to work by bicycle. I may be biased, but I firmly believe that if more people in the city and suburbs used bicycles to get around at least some of the time it would put a big dent in the nation's oil appetite - and a dent in many bulging stomachs as well.
There was an article in 'The New Yorker' magazine two years ago (abstracted here) called 'Green Manhattan'. The article confirmed something I've always suspected: dense urban areas (like NYC) are much more energy efficient than less dense suburban areas. Some of this is due to apartment buildings being more energy efficient, but the primary reason is the small percentage of residents who commute to work by car and/or alone in their car. Only 46% of New Yorkers even own a car (in Manhattan it's only 25%) and 2 out of every 3 people who commute to work by rail in the United States are in the New York area.
We all know that the automobile has changed the landscape of North America for the last 80 years. Suburban sprawl is now the norm and new homes being built are 2 to 3 times larger than the typical home built 20 years ago. This is without any major improvements in energy efficiency, since insulation use became commonplace 30 to 40 years ago.
The simple fact of the matter is that the way most non-urban communities are designed, it necessitates driving almost every day of the week: to work, to shop, to visit friends, to see a movie, to eat out, etc. While public transportation is available in many suburbs, a very small percentage of people have used it even once and even less use it regularly.
This goes beyond city vs. Suburbs though. In the 'pre-suburb' days of 50 to 100 years ago most rural towns had a relatively densely populated town center where most people in the town lived. It was entirely feasible to walk to the local stores to shop, to walk to work, school, church, parks, playgrounds, etc. Now, these same towns that are slapped with the name 'suburb' or 'bedroom community' are filled with what are called 'developments' (at least that's we called them growing up) which are carved out of farmland or forests and are usually miles from any kind of commercial area. These houses were located and designed around the idea of cheap and plentiful gasoline that in the next 50 years will become more expensive and scarcer.
Nationally, 90% of Americans drive to work. Let's assume 10% carpool. Total (on the books) employment is about 145 million, so 116 million Americans drive to work alone about 200 days out of the year. If the average person lives 5 miles from work and is getting 20 MPG, this means 11.6 billion gallons of gas are burned every year to simply commute to work. This equals about 258 million barrels and produces 278.4 billion pounds of CO2 gas.
Per capita, the United States uses the most energy of any nation on Earth and consequently, produces the most greenhouse gases. A good portion of this energy is simply wasted. As a nation, we can't rely solely on the government or corporations to turn this trend around of their own accord. The ultimate solution has to be demanded by citizens and consumers.

CNBC now in Murdoch's Crosshairs

2007-10-15T12:50:00.000-04:00

Small investors, days traders and of course anyone working in a brokerage office or trading floor have long been used to seeing the smiling faces of the team of financial reporters on CNBC. CNBC, owned by General Electric's NBC/Universal media division, has long been a staple of business and market news. While there are a handful of other financial channels, as far as market share, CNBC has been the 'Microsoft' to Bloomberg TV's 'Apple' for over a decade. Until now that is.

Rupert Murdoch, the head of News corp., and founder of the Fox television empire, has taken aim at CNBC. He has spent 2 years and will end up spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars to create Fox Business channel. Initially, Fox Business won't initially have as large a reach as CNBC - 30 million homes vs. 90 million - but that is sure to change.

The strategy for Fox Business seems to be first, to try to peel away viewers who don't work on 'Wall St.' per se, or may not be as wealthy or knowledgeable as the average CNBC viewer:

"A lot of people who don't have a lot of money (will) appreciate the fact that we're not speaking over their heads," Neil Cavuto, the network's managing editor, told Reuters recently. "That's a way of ensuring going beyond the typical Wall Street crowd." (Reuters, 10/15/07)

If they're actually looking for a demographic that doesn't 'have a lot of money', that would seem to hobble their ability to pull in large amounts of ad revenue, but I digress.

Additionally, and maybe even more dubiously, there has been talk that Fox Business will be more 'business friendly' than CNBC. Um... okay.... So CNBC, the channel of Jim Cramer and Larry Kudlow (!!) is supposedly anti-business? I wouldn't call CNBC necessarily 'pro-business', but down the line they are all supply-side, mostly pro-deregulation parrots of generally accepted pro-business policies. More importantly CNBC is, above all else, pro-investor.

Yes, during the 'Internet bubble', they were a mostly unquestioning rah-rah corps for the bull market, with warnings of risk and bear markets given little air-time. Since those days and through the Enrons and Quattrones of the business news world, they have learned their lesson and are definitely more skeptical. Yes, this is a good thing. They are at their best when they interview corporate executives and industry analysts, They will pull no punches and I believe, genuinely strive to get the real story for the benefit of viewers who have or are considering investing their money.

So, Fox Business promises to be more 'small investor' friendly and more 'pro-business' (less skeptical?). If Murdoch follows the model he used with Fox News, that being, "you can fool some of the people all of the time", then Fox Business should prove to be just as successful.

Seen on Columbia & Sackett

2007-10-12T18:51:00.000-04:00

Art space comment on over-development along the Brooklyn waterfront.

Sent from Mike Webster's Treo 680

An Inconvenient Award

2007-10-12T09:56:00.000-04:00

So, Al Gore and the United Nations climate panel are co-winners of this year's Nobel prize for... (drum roll, please) ... peace? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for them and I'm happy that the important issue of climate change is getting even more attention. However, it seems that the prize for peace for Gore and the U.N. seems to be kind of a stretch. The stated rationalization is that since climate change will result in scarcity of resources, it will become the underlying cause of future wars, and indeed, already is the cause of some current conflicts. OK.

That said, the nation - nay, the entire world - should prepare themselves for the venomous blood-curdling screams of derision, hate and personal attacks that will no doubt arise from the darker corners of right-wingnut punditry and blogosphere. Will these supposedly patriotic folks even feel some pride in the fact that, hey, at least an American won the prize? Doubtful.

Dear Karen

2007-10-11T11:11:00.000-04:00

In Salon.com today Sidney Blumenthal, writer and former Clinton advisor, published an open letter written to Karen Hughes. Hughes is currently in the State Dept. holding a newly created post of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. She is also one of the oldest members of Bush's coterie from the Texas days still left in the administration. The letter invites Hughes to a private screening of "Taxi to The Dark Side", a documentary about the administration's torture policies and urges her to use her influence with Bush to alter his current policy on torture. That policy can be boiled down to denying that we torture but approving specific 'interrogation techniques' that any reasonable person would define as torture. In the end of the letter, Blumenthal describes to Hughes what her choices are:

"While you are rethinking how to calm fears and rebuild America's image as a global leader perhaps you ought to begin to think of yourself not as a tool of the Bush administration but as a citizen of the world, not as a propagandist, constantly trying to formulate a hollow ideological phrase or distraction, but as someone who can admit mistakes and correct them."
"If you receive this letter as simply a partisan broadside and can't envision your transformation into a true diplomat at large, an envoy of healing, perhaps you should just resign. Nothing will be served by continuing on your current course. Nothing different will happen. You might as well return to Texas now. To date, your diplomacy has consisted of excuses for leaving the damage to the next president to remedy." (Salon.com 10/11/07)

How have we come to this point? The administration, in defiance of international law, U.S. court decisions and public opinion continues to torture. They justify this by defining the word torture so narrowly as to effectively remove it from the vocabulary. Indeed, many professional interrogation experts like Col. Stuart Herrington, say that the current techniques in use are basically useless and mostly counter-productive.

History will definitely view this president's record with regards to civil liberties alongside the shameful examples of The Red scare of the 1920s, the Japanese-American interment in 1942 and McCarthy-ism in the 1950s. Many would argue that it is worse than any of these. I tend to agree.

Quote of The Day

2007-10-10T13:40:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Stephen Colbert:

"Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended. Because the Constitution gives us broadcasters the right to say anything we want but that doesn't mean that just anyone has the right to listen."

Brilliant. Seriously, the more the general public gets to hear from these hateful, intolerant, holier than thou, social darwinists, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Jack Goldsmith on The Daily Show

2007-10-09T16:00:00.000-04:00

Jon Stewart's interview with Jack Goldsmith, author of "The Terror Presidency", regarding the government's wiretapping program.

So who wants to 'take away our Freedom' again?

'Rotten' Direct

2007-10-09T12:43:00.000-04:00

In recent years New York residents have become accustomed to seeing Fresh Direct trucks delivering groceries direct to their door. The idea seems to make sense: order a variety of groceries online and receive delivery within a day or two. No more driving to the grocery store means less fuel consumption, cleaner air, etc.

However, Fresh Direct came under fire almost from the start for what seemed to be a form of racial and economic 'red-lining'. They only offered delivery in more prosperous neighborhoods, even refusing to deliver to some neighborhoods right next to their distribution centers.

Next, some environmental advocates began to question the benefits of the delivery service. The trucks bring more traffic congestion and thereby air and noise pollution to residential neighborhoods and the deliveries use a significantly increased amount of packaging; much of it un-recyclable. I once witnessed a Fresh Direct truck on Union St. in Park Slope pull over recklessly and shear off the rear view mirror of a parked car and scrape its fender. This was after almost running me over on my bicycle. I don't know if they left a note on the damaged car.

Now, Fresh Direct employees are starting to complain about their working conditions and pay levels that are 40% lower than other supermarket and food warehouse workers make in New York. According to the local Teamster Union spokesperson, Fresh Direct has retained the services of a law firm that specializes in anti-union efforts.

I don't have a car so I either walk or ride my bicycle to either my local Met Food or to the Fairway store in Red Hook and avoid using plastic shopping bags.

Typical Skin-deep Analysis of Free Trade from WSJ

2007-10-09T09:27:00.000-04:00

"WASHINGTON -- By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president." (WSJ - 10/4/07)

Thus begins reporter John Harwood's analysis of the shift in opinion of Republican voters going into next years presidential election. The poll cited clearly shows that Republican voters are now largely in agreement with Democratic voters that free trade agreements are bad for the U.S. Of course, this puts most of the Republican presidential candidates in the uncomfortable situation of either changing or defending their positions - and past congressional votes - in light of of this change in the political landscape. Furthermore they will need to balance this stance with a contrary pro-business stance likely to be demanded by many Republican party 'benefactors'. To be fair, a few of the Democratic candidates have Clinton-era pro free trade agreement histories to defend, but overall Democratic rhetoric has been against these agreements for many years now.

The article goes on to explain that this change could be attributed to reasons of security, the recent spate of recalls of imported products and possibly even the steady loss of good paying manufacturing jobs over the last ten years. Nah, that couldn't be it.

So, typically, the article paints the argument against free trade agreements in a good or bad context, without questioning how the agreements are written. Both NAFTA and CAFTA are written from a business point of view. The only micro-economic sectors that they regulate are producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, importers-exporters. To look at these agreements you'd think that the other micro sectors of labor - human capital, physical capital - plants and the environment in which they operate and government regulation, don't even exist.

The reason these agreements are bad isn't because free trade is bad per se, it's because they aren't comprehensive. They allow U.S. firms to more easily produce in foreign (i.e.: non-EPA, non-OSHA, non-minimum wage) economies. Robert Reich, labor secretary under Clinton, has put forth the idea that these agreements should also specify 'living wage' guarantees. For example, that any nations party to the agreement must maintain a minimum wage equal to 25% of that nation's median income. Yes, labor would still be cheaper there than here, but at least not as cheap and there would be better distribution of income that would help create healthy middle classes everywhere which in turn would become more markets where the producers could sell more of their goods - everyone wins. Furthermore, why not also specify stipulations related to workplace safety, child labor and environmental protections like manufacturers in the U.S. must already obey.

To summarize, what the article fails to point out is that these agreements are crafted by corporations for the benefit of their own bottom lines thereby to boost the price of their stocks, largely by escaping almost all types of regulatory controls. NAFTA and CAFTA weren't written for the benefit of all in the signee nations. Indeed, in a net-net analysis, what they really do is lower overall average wages of the combined labor forces of the signee nations and worsen the distribution of income.

Yes, I know, what do I expect from the Wall Street Journal. The problem is this type of analysis is the norm from most of the main stream media, not just 'pro-business' press such as the WSJ.

Columbus Day

2007-10-08T16:17:00.000-04:00

Columbus day. Always a great time to remember the "discovery" of the New World. Also, a nice time to point out that Columbus began and helped to perpetuate the first round of European dominion over the New World - and it's inhabitants. He came across the Atlantic looking for a shortcut to the Far East. Once here, he enslaved native peoples, Taino and Caribe indians, among others, put them to work looking for gold and serving the explorers (the young females often forced into sexual servitude). When these natives resisted this servitude and the destruction of their land, they were slaughtered. The ones that weren't slaughtered, died of disease or starvation.

The earliest census of the native inhabitants of Hispanola by one of Columbus' own crew was about 1 million inhabitants. Within 30 years, there were none left. None. These aren't liberal 'we hate America' opinions, these are agreed on historical facts - hardly ever taught in school, however. The slaughter of 1 million people 500 years ago would equate to a figure of roughly 12 million people, adjusted for total world population, today.

The first few chapters of Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of the United States" and Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: How The West was Lost" are both very illuminating books on this subject.

"I Forbid", redux

2007-10-03T10:25:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush has seen fit to use his veto power ("I forbid" in Latin) only 3 times before, the first in July of 2006, to block a Congressional measure to use Federal money for stem cell research. So, out of all the bad legislation that was passed by Republican controlled Congresses for 6 years, he chose to veto one of the only good bills. Now, Bush has said he will veto the current renewal of the SCHIP (state childrens health insurance program) as it's being debated in Congress. It seems that our President almost seeks to be on the wrong side of any given issue, no matter how experts, not to mention the public, feel.

One thing everyone, even 'the Decider', agree on is that the entire system of healthcare delivery in this country is an unqualified mess. Ever since Kaiser healthcare of California in the early 1970s thought it would be a great idea to become a for-profit venture and Nixon quietly killed any regulations to the contrary, medical costs and quality of care have been going in opposite directions. This has only accelerated in the last 15 years as the markets figured out that there was money to be made by charging individuals and businesses enormous premiums and providing them with free preventative care - the 'M' in HMO stands for maintenence - but then only providing partial or no coverage for actual needed medical procedures. Catastrophic illness? You're basically on your own. Is it any surprise that the cause of the majority of personal bankruptcies of late is large medical bills for serious illness? A lot of these people even had supposed health coverage through work.

Almost all economists (including this holder of a BA in economics) know, that of all the services provided in an economy, healthcare and education work horribly in a for-profit/free market model. The same can also can be said for news media and public utilities. The reasons are simple - these services are a necesity for everyone that provide unmeasurable benefits for the overall society years down the road. The 'consumers need to shop around' argument that Republicans and even some Democrats (Hillary?) like to use is, in a word, ridiculous. This theory may work when consumers are shopping for preventative care, but that service is already provided for free by both governmental and for-profit entitites. If someone is having a heart attack, was just diagnosed with a tumor or whose child needs major corrective surgery, can they honestly be expected to 'shop around' for the 'best deal'?!? We're talking about life and death decisions! If anything, they should be shopping around for the best doctor, not the best bargain!

Another shoddy argument that gets thrown around (I won't even get into the right-wingers who spew the words 'socialized medicine' every 2 minutes) is that, yes our healthcare is expensive and growing fast, but the quality of our care is second to none. Wrong. Perhaps it's second to none if you're financially capable of writing 5 figure checks for premiums every year and then 6 figure checks if a serious illness occurs, but for the other 98% of us it is not. Out of all the industrialized nations, we are last or near last in almost all health measurements: infant mortality, average life span, etc. Why is this if we're spending so much? Because the system is FOR PROFIT. That money that should be providing second to none care for everyone is siphoned off in the form of stock dividends, cash dividends, capital gains and large bonuses for the executives that run the HMOs. Oh, I almost forgot, a lot of the money also goes to politicians via the healthcare lobby to help perpetuate this incredibly broken system.

Bush's threatened veto, petty as it is, is only the latest media sideshow in a major issue that needs to fixed. In the current political environment, it doesn't look to happen anytime soon.

Real Courage

2007-09-27T15:45:00.000-04:00

The man on the ground in this picture is Nagai Kenji, a Japanese photo-journalist. Actually I should say that he was a Japanese photo-journalist. The military junta that has ruled Myanmar, also known as Burma, for decades has seen the largest anti-governement protests since 1988, when over 3,000 people were killed. Buddhist monks started publicly protesting about a month ago in response to the removal of price controls on fuel that doubled fuel costs. The protests and marches have gained support and momentum with each passing week. The last two days the governement has responded to these calls for redress with curfews, beatings, arrests and now by killing protesters.

This Japanese photographer was covering the protests when soldiers moved in and fired into the crowd to disperse it. He was shot and wounded, during which time he was still attempting to take more pictures. He later died.

Sam's last night @ B-61

2007-09-26T22:22:00.000-04:00

Backbone

2007-09-24T20:56:00.000-04:00

Conservatives may claim that, unlike liberals, they have backbone. In reality, liberals have backbone also, the difference is we choose to use the brain that rests atop it.

On Monday, Sept. 24 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got to speak at Columbia University. Shortly after stepping onto the stage, he would surely regret it. While close minded, lock-step conservatives and strutting chicken hawks, from the once admired John McCain to the unintelligent cesspool that is Rush Limbaugh, screamed bloody murder about Ahmadinejad being allowed to speak at Columbia, Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia, had different plans. See video below of his opening remarks before Ahmadinejad spoke:

What the McCains, Limbaughs and FoxNews-philes of the world don't understand in their limited black and white intellectual spheres, is that by letting someone talk freely, doesn't mean you agree with them. Indeed, sometimes the more you let someone like Ahmadinejad speak, the more of an idiotic, lying despot they appear. You'd have thought the Republicans would have figured that out after six years of Bush.

Lee Bollinger called Ahmadinejad out - to his face, by the way - not by blathering into a TV studio camera or a radio microphone. In case anyone forgot, Bollinger's pointed, stern, yet humble closing remark is what real intellectual leadership looks like. This video is from YouTube, we should hope it gets many millions of hits in Mr. Ahmadinejad's home country.

Goldstein of the Week

2007-09-24T14:52:00.000-04:00

Yes, once again George Orwell must be somewhere laughing - or crying - or both. On the heels of al-Qaeda's fall season video premiers over the last couple of weeks. including "Tora Bora Martyr Makeover", the media and assorted local New York and national political 'leaders' have turned their collective blood-lust onto a new target- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Case in point:

Ahmadinejad announced last week that he wanted to visit ground zero, ostensibly to lay a wreath to honor the dead. The dead that he thinks were killed by a Zionist conspiricy, of course. I was of the opinion that he should've been allowed there, however surrounded by a few dozen members of the Ironworkers local, some off duty members of 'NYs finest' and a few guys from a half dozen FDNY ladder companies to boot. My guess is if he was stupid enough to go into his 'America is Satan' schtick at that point, he would've been choking on his own teeth after about ten seconds. Maybe these were the 'security concerns' that officials cited last week in their denial of his request.

That said, I think all the haters need to take a deep breath. If an auditorium full of Columbia undergrads and graduate students can't intellectually slice up this guy nine ways to Sunday, then we may have a bigger problem than we think. Actually, excluding the Holocaust denying, the Israel map wiping off and the Zionist 9/11 conspiricy stuff, this guy makes some valid points. Really, what has he said that was any more idiotic than "they want to take away our freedom"? Uhhh, no George, I don't think they give a shit about our freedom, and besides, they're not taking it away, YOU ARE! Not to mention making a holy f#*king mess out of everything you touch.

What gets a lot less play is that Ahmadinejad may actually be worse at running Iran than Bush is at running our country. Despite sky-high oil prices, employment is down in Iran, poverty is up, there is more underground unrest and the government is much less secular than in recent years - oops, my mistake - I guess we'll call that last one even.

(the style of this post inspired by JS, BM and of course HST)

Seen in Soho

2007-09-21T11:59:00.000-04:00

9:38 am, 9/21. Lieutenant Petrosino square, Lafayette & Centre sts.

Sent from Mike Webster's Treo 680

Jena 6 Update

2007-09-20T14:39:00.000-04:00

Today, 9/20/07, the NAACP has organized a protest in Jena, La that will probably outnumber the number of residents in the town (3600). Coverage here from The Washington Post.

So far, fortunately, things have remained peaceful.

The Jena situation has remained in the dark until the last couple of weeks, but the bright light of sunshine is the best disinfectant.

The Hearst Tower

2007-09-19T09:59:00.000-04:00

W. 57th St. @ 8th ave. NYC

Sent from Mike Webster's Treo 680

"Our Long National Nightmare Continues"

2007-09-16T10:29:00.000-04:00

In the shadow of General Petreus' long awaited report on the status of the Iraqi troop 'surge', George Packer in The New Yorker has written a sobering - and depressing - assessment of our way forward. At the end of the piece, he dismally concludes:

"The war was born in the original sins of deceptive salesmanship, divisive politics, and wishful thinking about the aftermath. The bitterness of that history continues to undermine American interests in Iraq and the Middle East today. President Bush will have his victory at any cost, with one eye on his next Churchillian speech and the other on his place in history, leaving the implementation of his war policy to an Administration that works at cross purposes with itself, promising freedom and delivering rubble. The opposition is plainly eager to hang a defeat around his neck and move on from what it always regarded as Bush’s war. Before the U.S. can persuade the world to unite around a shared responsibility for Iraq, Americans will have to do it first. The problems created by the war will require solutions that don’t belong to a single political party or President: the rise of Iranian power, the emergence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the radicalization of populations, the huge refugee crisis, the damage to a new generation of Iraqis who are growing up amid the unimaginable. Whenever this country decides that the bloody experience in Iraq requires the departure of American troops, complete disengagement will be neither desirable nor possible. We might want to be rid of Iraq, but Iraq won’t let it happen." (The New Yorker, 9/17/07)

Packer also draws the obvious conclusion that though many would like to make comparisons between our involvement in Iraq and the Vietnam war, the consequences of our folly this time around will be much more damaging.

How Will He Reach the Gas Pedal?

2007-09-15T13:15:00.000-04:00

Received in the mail on 9/14/07 (click on image for larger version):

An explanation here, for those not in the know...

Seen over the East River

2007-09-13T19:01:00.000-04:00

Manhattan Bridge west tower

7:00 pm, 9/13/07

The burner still lives in NYC

Where's Atticus?

2007-09-12T12:45:00.000-04:00

(Thanks to Kat for the tip on this story)

The story of racial divisions between black and white students at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana is, unfortunately, the type of tale that may be somewhat commonplace, though fortunately, far less common than in the past. However, the way that the authorities in Jena are handling the situtation could make one rub one's eyes in disbelief that this is happening in 2007 and not 1957 or 1937. This article from a story on NPR's 'All Things Considered' on July 30th outlines the escalation of events that led to the trial of the 'Jena 6'. Here is a follow-up piece from NPR on 9/7.

The articles talk about the heinous behavior of the students involved on both sides of the racial divide as racial tensions at Jena High bubbled to the surface. What is truly - amazingly - repugnant is the clear racial discrimination of the DA and law enforcement in the town. From charging to sentencing to jury selection to the shear negligence of the public defender assigned to the Mychal Bell trial, the entire system seems blatently racist.

"The first to go to court was Mychal Bell, the team's star running and defensive back. Bell's court-appointed lawyer refused to mount any defense at all, instead resting his case immediately after two days of government presentation. An all-white jury found Bell guilty." (NPR.org 7/30/07)

At least in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', Tom Robinson had Atticus Finch actually fighting for him.

If you're as outraged as I, please sign this online petition at NAACP.org:

http://naacp.org/get-involved/activism/petitions/jena-6/

Thank you.

The Timeline

2007-09-11T20:31:00.000-04:00

Well, another slick little gear-shift by the Bush administration this week. According to The Washington Post:

"President Bush plans to formally embrace the drawdown of U.S. forces as recommended by Petraeus yesterday, U.S. officials said today. In a speech scheduled for Thursday at 9 p.m., Bush will tell the nation he plans to end the 30,000-troop surge into Iraq by next summer but will caution that those and further cuts depend on continued progress in Iraq, the officials said."

Now mind you, if the 30,000 troop surge is ended by next summer, there will still be 130,000+ troops still there and at least that many private contractors. Additionally, ending the surge by next summer sounds an awful lot like Bush is setting a timeline. Yes, a timeline, that word that Bush heaped such disdain on after the new Democratic majority arrived in town last year. That word that practically caused Cheney and other neo-con think-tankers to spit blood.

Whether he's trying to steal the Democrats' thunder by talking timelines and troop cuts or simply making decisions in a political (and reality) vacuum, the fact remains that Bush won't be doing anything substantive to clean up his own mess. That will be up to the next resident of 1600 Penn. ave.

Seen on Columbia St.

2007-09-11T10:39:00.000-04:00

Hello all! After taking a year away from the blog, I've decided to get back to it. I've now set it up for mobile blogging, so that I can post from almost anywhere at anytime with my Treo 'smartphone' - even with photos or video.

My 'plan' is that some of my posts now will be a little more fun, some more 'breaking news' oriented and with more about what's happening in my little corner of Brooklyn. Of course, if something nationally outrages me, I still have my poison pen at the ready, á la Tierra del Ciego, v. 1.0

-mikeweb

Green and Mean

2006-08-17T14:07:00.000-04:00

I live in New York City and have traveled to Europe and noticed that almost everywhere in Europe, buildings, transportation, almost everything is designed to save energy, water and lessen environmental impacts. In comparison, during the recent heat wave in New York, many retailers were leaving their doors open, spilling air-conditioned air onto the sidewalks. Most often this is mandated by the corporate policy of the retailers' parent companies.
I travel about the city by bicycle about half the time and mass transit the other half. Bicycle transportation is more noticeable in New York than anywhere else in North America, yet is dwarfed by the ubiquity of it in most European cities. In New York City, about 115,000 people a day commute to work by bicycle. I may be biased, but I firmly believe that if more people in the city and suburbs used bicycles to get around at least some of the time it would put a big dent in the nation's oil appetite - and a dent in many bulging stomachs as well.
There was an article in 'The New Yorker' two years ago (it's no longer available online) called 'Green New York'. The article confirmed something I've always suspected: dense urban areas (like NYC) are much more energy efficient than less dense suburban areas. Some of this is due to apartment buildings being more energy efficient, but the primary reason is the small percentage of residents who commute to work by car and/or alone in their car. Only 46% of New Yorkers even own a car (in Manhattan it's only 25%) and 2 out of every 3 people who commute to work by rail in the United States are in the New York area.
We all know that the automobile has changed the landscape of North America for the last 80 years. Suburban sprawl is now the norm and new homes being built are 2 to 3 times larger than the typical home built 20 years ago. This is without any major improvements in energy efficiency, since insulation use became commonplace 30 to 40 years ago.
The simple fact of the matter is that the way most non-urban communities are designed, it necessitates driving almost every day of the week: to work, to shop, to visit friends, to see a movie, to eat out, etc. While public transportation is available in many suburbs, a very small percentage of people have used it even once and even less use it regularly.
This goes beyond city vs. Suburbs though. In the 'pre-suburb' days of 50 to 100 years ago most rural towns had a relatively densely populated town center where most people in the town lived. It was entirely feasible to walk to the local stores to shop, to walk to work, school, church, parks, playgrounds, etc. Now, these same towns that are slapped with the name 'suburb' or 'bedroom community' are filled with what are called 'developments' (at least that's we called them growing up) which are carved out of farmland or forests and are usually miles from any kind of commercial area. These houses were located and designed around the idea of cheap and plentiful gasoline that in the next 50 years will become more expensive and scarcer.
Nationally, 90% of Americans drive to work. Let's assume 10% carpool. Total (on the books) employment is about 145 million, so 116 million Americans drive to work alone about 200 days out of the year. If the average person lives 5 miles from work and is getting 20 MPG, this means 11.6 billion gallons of gas are burned every year to simply commute to work. This equals about 258 million barrels and produces 278.4 billion pounds of CO2 gas.
Per capita, the United States uses the most energy of any nation on Earth and consequently, produces the most greenhouse gases. A good portion of this energy is simply wasted. As a nation, we can't rely on the government or corporations to turn this trend around of their own accord. The ultimate solution has to be demanded by citizens and consumers.

Fear or Courage

2006-08-14T20:28:00.000-04:00

When the British terrorist plot was uncovered last week and said to be "close to execution", despite the fact that none of the plotters had actually bought airline tickets and only half of them even held passports, there were sighs of relief on both sides of the pond.
Of course, many politicians, primarily George Bush, used the occasion to goose up the fear level a little bit as we close in on the mid-term elections in November:

"The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."...
"But obviously, we're still not completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in. It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America. And that is why we have given our officials the tools they need to protect our people."

No doubt we'll be seeing more of this kind of fear mongering as the elections draw closer. This page in the Republican playbook has become well worn and dog-eared in recent years though by no means was invented after 9/11 (anybody remember Bush Sr's Willy Horton campaign ads?). Yes, the Republicans like to remind the citizenry over and over that there's a boogy-man around every corner.
Of course, this steady drone not allows them to win elections, it's the perfect backdrop with which to steadily shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Best Defense is... a Good Defense

2006-08-10T09:49:00.000-04:00

The British Home Defense authorities are reporting Thursday the foiling of a sophisticated coordinated attempt to bomb multiple commercial airliners in flight using liquid explosives. It appears that the harmless separate ingredients of the explosives would have been carried on the flight in hand luggage, combined to create the explosive mixture and then detonated, possibly by use of a simple electrical device.

Police are searching premises after 21 people were arrested. Home Secretary John Reid said they believed the "main players" were accounted for. High security is causing delays at all UK airports. The threat level to the UK has been raised by MI5 to critical after the arrests in London, High Wycombe and Birmingham. Critical threat level - the highest - means "an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK"..."We are confident that we have disrupted a plan by terrorists to cause untold death and destruction and to commit, quite frankly, mass murder," Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said. (BBC News, 8/10/06)

The investigation brilliantly seems to have prevented a terror attack that could've have resulted in many thousands of deaths. Furthermore, the plot has all the earmarks of an al-Qaeda operation: targeting airliners, a multiple coordinated attack and a sophistication to the plan.

What this plot also points out is the utter ridiculousness of the Bush administration's anti-terror strategy. Bush and others like to continually repeat over and over their belief that we have to 'fight the terrorists abroad, so that we don't have to at home'. While this may be valid if he's referring to beefing up our 'on the ground' intelligence gathering and infiltration operations overseas, preemptively launching military operations, such as the Iraq debacle, to 'fight terrorism' has been proven completely ineffective. Indeed, this approach is more likely counterproductive by creating a fertile environment for the recruitment of more terrorists and giving them a foreign 'coalition of the willing' to practice on.

The Moscow Metro bombing of February, 2004, the Madrid train bombings in March of 2004, the Russian airliner bombings of August, 2004 and the London Underground and bus bombings of July, 2005 are but a few examples of attacks that have happened since we 'took the fight to the terrorists' in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, there are many other large and small terror plots that have been stopped, including today's announcement.

Clearly, advances in security technology, better human intelligence and infiltration operations and wider coordination of law enforcement organizations nationally and internationally are much more effective than the current failed military strategy. In this struggle, the best defense is not a good offense, at least as Bush defines it.

Proof Needed

2006-08-09T15:54:00.000-04:00

One thing that has hardly been spoken of, seen or demanded in the current Israeli war against Hizbollah, and by default Lebanon, is visual proof. Israel has repeatedly stated that they don't deliberately target civilians, though at this time, about 1,000 Lebanese civilians who weren't targeted are dead anyway. Israel and almost everyone else like to claim that Hizbollah is using women and children as 'human shields', but is there any visual proof of this. At one point, the IDF did offer one example of photos or video that supposedly showed a Hizbollah rocket attack. I've seen it and it's very grainy.

It seems that with high resolution camera technology that's available and unmanned drone aircraft not to mention all the NSA and satellite intel that the Israelis are getting from the neo-cons in Washington on the sly, there should some fairly indisputable visual proof for at least one of the bombings. The IDF has been hitting large residential buildings and laying entire blocks of south Beirut to waste. Where is the visual evidence to justify this? Are they using so called human intelligence? Very doubtful. Hizbollah is notoriously secretive of their operations, even from the Shiite population where they operate.

Obviously, the IDF started this operation with what was probably a fairly limited target list and after pounding those targets into oblivion, moved on to any target that could conceivably be hiding a single 6 foot long Katyusha rocket, whether it be an apartment building, a well drilling truck that looked like a rocket launcher or a passenger car that could conceivably be hiding one in it's trunk. As guesswork in the targeting rationale goes up, the fog of war becomes ever foggier.

Israel could've done itself a huge favor in the area of world opinion by foreseeing this as persuasive tool and planning accordingly. Without proof, as the body count grows, the 'trust us, we're being careful' argument just doesn't fly.

Guerrillas in The Midst

2006-08-08T23:00:00.000-04:00

Israel's goals when they launched their massive bombardment campaign and later their limited ground campaign in southern Lebanon was to force Hizbollah away from the border to reduce the immediate threat of their Katyusha rocket attacks and also more generally to try to destroy their military capability and ability to re-arm via Syria. On all these counts the campaign is a qualified failure. The rockets continue to rain down with seemingly increased abundance and in direct ground fighting with Hizbollah, Israel has had some success but has lost many soldiers.

"What we face is an infantry division with state-of-the-art weaponry -- night-vision gear, advanced rifles, well-equipped -- deployed along our border," said Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, who until last month was director of analysis for Israeli military intelligence. "They have some of the most advanced antitank missiles in the world." (Washington Post, 8/8/06)

This doesn't exactly sound like a terrorist group, it sounds like a well armed and formidable guerrilla army. But why is anyone surprised? Israel felt the increasingly lethal sting of Hizbollah the last time they were in Lebanon as an occupying force for 18 years up until 6 years ago. Why did they think it would go any better this time?

Over the last week, there has been a slow subtle turn in the diplomatic stances of Israel and the United States regarding the Lebanese conflict. Olmert seems to be murmuring a little louder about reaching a cease fire agreement and pushing for a UN occupying force on the Lebanese border and the border with Syria to prevent the flow of arms. It's obvious that Israel realizes that the war has gone from bad to worse and that public opinion in Israel is quickly ebbing as the rockets continue coming despite the ferocious military campaign to stop them. They're calculating the end game.

So if the result of this foolish conflict on the part of Israel and Hizbollah is simply that Hizbollah is moved back and that there is a UN peacekeeping force, what was the whole point? These results could've been accomplished through diplomacy and the UN after the capture of Israel's soldiers or even before. A thousand dead Lebanese and dozens of dead Israelis, all civilians; never have so many been killed so needlessly for so little.

Losing "Joe-mentum"

2006-08-08T21:30:00.000-04:00

A warning bell for many moderate Democrats is tolling tonight in Connecticut. The Washington Post is reporting that three term U.S. Senator, Joe Lieberman is trailing Democratic primary challenger Ned Lamont by about 7 percentage points with 38% of precincts reporting. As of the time of this post the lead is 4 points with 84% of precincts reporting.

This closely watched campaign, that has swung steadily in Lamonts favor in recent months, is being seen largely as a referendum on the war in Iraq. To be fair, Lieberman has been somewhat critical of the conduct of the war, but no more so than many Republicans such as John McCain. What has been missing, though, is outspoken criticism and strongly pushing alternatives or changes in direction such as those offered by Jack Murtha and John Kerry. Additionally, as pointed out by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com, much of the rhetoric that Lieberman used in stating his position and criticizing many other Democrats over the last 2 years, seems to very closely parallel the Karl Rove authored Republican talking points about the war:

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years. And that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril. (CNN, 12/6/05)

My point here is that the home front affects the battle front. Politics as usual at home can and will have unusually bad consequences in Iraq. It encourages our enemies to believe they are succeeding in their attempts to influence our policy. They clearly seek by their hostage taking, by their desecration of the bodies of our dead, and by their terrorism to break the will of the people of America. (Brookings Institute, April 2004)

As Greenwald states, "That is the sort of 'Democrats are allies of our enemies' rhetoric that one expects to find in Rush Limbaugh's daily demonizing rants or on Michelle Malkin's blog, not in a speech from a Democratic senator." Clearly, Lieberman is Zell Miller 'Lite'. We are a very long way from the moderate 'third way' philosophy of the DLC and Bill Clinton of the 1990's. Indeed, even the golden touch of a Bill Clinton appearance with Lieberman at a campaign stop recently didn't seem to have much of an effect.

If Lamont wins the primary, as all signs point to, it raises many questions for the general election. Lieberman has already stated that if he lost the primary, he would still run as an independent. Lieberman's chances in a three way race are probably fairly good, as he would draw many moderate Republican and independent voters. If the race is close, one would hope that Lieberman might consider dropping out and supporting Lamont if the alternative is losing the seat to a Republican. However Lieberman has shown in the past that he is willing to put his own interests ahead of his party's. In the 2000 election when Lieberman was Gore's running mate, he still ran for his Senate seat. If they had won the election (oh wait, they did), Lieberman would have had to vacate his Senate seat. John Rowland, the Republican governor at the time (he moved on to prison afterward for accepting illegal favors), would've appointed a new Senator, who surely would have been a Republican. Lieberman could've chosen to avoid this possibility by letting another Democrat run for the seat and campaigning for him, but he didn't.

Science or The Supernatural

2006-08-01T11:21:00.000-04:00

This November, 3 conservative Republican incumbents on the 10 person Kansas state Board of Education come up for re-election. The conservative majority on Board of Education approved new standards for all students in the state that present so called 'intelligent design' as a valid scientific theory and paints evolution as unproven. The standard goes on to state that there's a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code."

Janet Waugh, a Democrat who opposed the new standards and lamented that Kansas has become an international laughingstock, drew a conservative Democratic challenger who supports the standards that allow for criticism of evolution.(Washington Post, 8/1/2006)

Many scientific and education group have weighed in against the new standard and the Seattle based Discovery Institute, a pro 'intelligent design' think tank has been running radio ads in favor of the standards. The Discovery Institute website states that opponents are "using their voices to try to undermine Kansas' science standards and stifle discussion of the scientific evidence they don't like." What the Institute fails to mention is that there is absolutely no peer reviewed or even debatable scientific evidence that supports 'intelligent design' or a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code."

We can only hope that in this battle in the 'War on Science', logical, reasoned thinking prevails over supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Charles Darwin himself was a deeply religious man. At least he chose to use his God given intelligence to advance the knowledge of all mankind instead of trying to undermine the progress of science.

Business as Usual in Washington D.C.

2006-07-31T15:57:00.000-04:00

"Republicans have made perfectly clear who they stand with and who they are willing to fight for: the privileged few."

-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

As the carnage in Iraq continues and Israel plays a futile and ever deadlier game of "whack-a-mole" in Lebanon, this week the Republican controlled Congress continues it's steady march to turn the United States economy into a feudal system.

The House has passed a measure by a vote of 230 to 180 that will raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. However, in an effort to insure passage by the Senate, the House Republican leadership added a permanent cut to the estate tax to the minimum wage bill. Many Democrats are outraged at this tactic, especially involving the estate tax cut, that will only benefit a very small number of the wealthiest American families and cost the Treasury an estimated $263 billion of lost revenue over the next ten years. The Washington Post reports that, "Republicans believed they had found a way to snatch the minimum-wage issue away from Democrats, who had been using it as a cudgel, while securing passage of a central plank of their economic program: all but eliminating the estate tax."

So in this little Republican gambit, if Democratic Senators do the fiscally responsible thing and vote against this bill, their opponents in November's midterm elections can claim, in a tone of mock populism, that they had cast a vote against 'working class Americans' on the minimum wage issue.

This 'compromise' was called "legislative extortion" and "...beyond cynical... disgraceful" by some Democrats. I couldn't agree more.

The "Fog of War" Turns Sinister

2006-07-26T14:12:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reported on July 26 the killing of 4 unarmed United Nations observers in their fortified post late Tuesday. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was "shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting". These comments drew criticism by some, accusing Annan of jumping to conclusions. Maybe these people should've taken a look at the details of the incident first.

The 4 U.N. observers started receiving Israeli bombardment nearby the observation post Tuesday morning and took shelter in a bunker under their post. The post lies near the hilltop town of Khiyam, is very clearly marked and has been there for eighteen years. Israel knew it was there. Both the BBC and the Guardian are reporting that U.N. commanders asked the Israelis 10 times over the course of the day to stop the bombing on their position. According to the Guardian:

Jane Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping, told the UN security council that the base came under close Israeli fire 21 times - including 12 hits within 100 metres and four direct hits - from 1.20pm until contact was lost with the four peacekeepers inside at 7.17pm."
Ms Lute said the peacekeeping force had protested to the Israeli army after each firing incident. The UN's deputy secretary general, Mark Malloch Brown, and Ms Lute herself also made several calls to Israel's mission to the UN "reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling", she said.
After contact with the base was lost, Unifil then won safe passage for two armoured personnel carriers to evacuate the position, she said. They arrived at 9.30pm "and found the shelter collapsed and major damage to the rest of the position". Despite negotiating safe passage, the APCs also came under Israeli attack, Ms Lute said.
Earlier, the United Nations general secretary, Kofi Annan, accused the Israeli military of carrying out a sustained bombing of the UN base on the Lebanon-Israel border that culminated in the killing of four unarmed monitors.
Mr Annan said he had suggested to the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that they carry out a joint investigation into the events that led to the shelling of the "well-established and well marked" Unifil (UN interim force in Lebanon) post in the town of Khiyam.
"I spoke to Mr Olmert and he definitely believes it was a mistake and has expressed his deep sorrow, " Mr Annan told a press conference in Rome. "But the shelling started in the morning and went on until after 7pm. You cannot imagine the anguish of the unarmed men and women peacekeepers who were there."

Clearly, either the artillery gunners (who already knew the post was there) didn't receive these pleas from the U.N. during the day, or did and chose to ignore them. Perhaps someone in the Israeli chain of command chose not to pass along the information. According to the BBC, the post was hit with a "precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling".

Of course Ehud Olmert has expressed "deep sorrow", according to Annan, and has promised a full investigation into the incident. I should say so.

Along with reports of bombardments near hospitals and civilian vehicles being targeted deliberately by Israeli helicopter gunships, this is only another example of the clear lack of any kind of regard for civilian life being shown by the Israelis. 'Well, Hizbollah targets civilians too!' is the typically Neanderthal response to this. Well, if Israel is such a 'progressive' and 'civilized' nation, as so many claim, then why are they exhibiting the same type of behavior as a terrorist organization? But then again, her benefactor the U.S., doesn't exactly set a great example.

"I Forbid"

2006-07-19T16:37:00.000-04:00

That's the English translation of the Latin word 'veto'. Today, George Bush used his presidential veto power for the first time in his entire 'reign'. As the Washington Post reports, the Senate passed a bill 63-37 that would've used federal money to fund stem cell research. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the presidential veto has been exercised 1,717 times, an average of 17 times per year or 68 times in a four year term. What Bush has done instead is use hundreds of so called 'signing statements', that basically tell Congress and the courts what part of the bills that he signs into law he feels that he as King - er, President, actually doesn't have to obey.

So, of all the bills that he's signed into law, he picks this one to veto. A bill that would've used not fetuses, not even embryos, but multi-celled blastocysts to conduct potentially live saving and quality of life saving research for an array terrible diseases and conditions. Blastocysts are literally the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Randi Rhodes pointed out this sickening exchange with Tony Snow in the 7/18 WHPB on Air America:

MR. SNOW: The President -- I don't think that's the choice that the President has presented. What the President has said is that he doesn't want human life destroyed. Now, you may consider that insignificant, but the President has said -- and you have had in a number of cases the Snowflake babies, where some of those fetuses have, in fact, been brought to term and have become human beings. The President believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federalgovernment to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them...
...As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're going to support it handsomely. The simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong, and he has said.

So, the President thinks it's murder, but he's OK with private research companies committing 'murder' and if people make money from it, all the better. Also notice how Snow gets in the quick dig at two states that vote overwhemingly Democratic in national elections. Do these people have souls? At this point I'd even settle for a little bit of conscience...

Pure Insanity

2006-07-18T20:43:00.000-04:00

Well, Israel continues trying to make friends and influence people in her own special way this week. The Washington Post reports on 7/18 that the civilian death toll in Lebanon continues to climb. Among those killed were 7 Canadians, unfortunate enough to be caught in southern Lebanon when the Shiite hit the fan. The official explanation for most of the civilains casualties is that Hezbollah likes to hide themselves and their meager weapons among the civilian population. I think 'hiding behind women and children' is the sound bite that seems to be popular. I find it hard to believe that Hezbollah would be hiding behind Canadians. Firing rockets into and dropping bombs on densely populated areas is irresponsible. It doesn't matter who's doing it. There's no moral high ground in this conflict what so ever, only varying degrees of stubbonness and stupidity.

Perhaps the most stupidity is on the Israeli side. Lebanon has a moderate, representative democratic government and along with Egypt and Jordan, is one of Israel's friendliest neighbors. Unfortunately, Syria has too much influence in Lebanon and it's influence largely unwanted by the Lebanese. Ironically, Lebanon wants Hezbollah out of it's country almost as much as Israel does. Unfortunately, the Lebanese army is small and weak and any move they might make against Hezbollah would surely be countered by the Syrian army rolling across the border. So, if Israel and Lebanon want the same thing, why then is Israel bombing the crap out Lebanon. Wouldn't it make more sense to cooperate with them. Here's an even crazier idea. Maybe Israel along with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon could create a regional treaty organization, along the lines of NATO. Given the largely warm diplomatic climate between all these nations for many years now, it's not something that would be impossible to accomplish.

The only thing being accomplished with the current strategy is more of the same alienation and radicalization that's failed for the past sixty years.

Israel Bombs

2006-07-13T22:24:00.000-04:00

The past year had seen much progress in the relations between Israel and Palestine. The Israelis withdrew from the Gaza strip, closed Israeli settlements there and talked of more settlement closures in the West Bank. Things began to turn when the Hamas party won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament; a setback for the more moderate Fata party. The militant wing of Hamas had committed most of the terrorist acts of the recent Intifada and Hamas as a whole has consistently refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist. That said, the voters of Palestine chose Hamas over the woefully corrupt and often ineffective, Fata party. Tensions were raised when Israel and the U.S. began putting pressure on Hamas and the Palestinian government to moderate their stance on Israel, backing up words with actions in the form of a financial blockade that has bankrupted the Palestinian government for 5 months now.

Hamas militants soon began lobbing inaccurate Katyusha rockets into southern Israel not hitting much of anything. In response Israel began lobbing rockets and shells into Gaza, recently inadvertantly killing an entire family who were enjoying a day at the beach. Two weeks ago, Hamas militants, sneaking into southern Israel through tunnels, captured an Israeli soldier and killed 2 others. I say captured despite the insistence of almost everyone to say he was kidnapped. I'm sorry, but civilians get kidnapped, soldiers involved in a military operation get captured. In response, Israel has launched an ongoing invasion and bombardment of Gaza, targeting among other things, civilian infrastructure such as bridges and a power station. They have lost a few more of their own soldiers and killed at least 20 Palestinian civilians in the process.

Finally, last week Hizbollah militants in southern Lebanon captured 2 more Israeli soldiers during a cross border raid. Israel retaliated by bombing Hizbollah strong points in southern Lebanon, which prompted Hizbollah to launch rockets into northern Israel, some reaching Haifa. In response, Israel has invaded southern Lebanon, bombed the Beirut airport (photo), instituted a blockade and is threatening Syria, which supports both Hizbollah and Hamas. This has already resulted in 55 civilian deaths in Lebanon. The fighting has escalated so quickly, that even the U.S. is urging restraint.

It seems illogical that when Hamas, etc. were targeting Israeli citizens with suicide bombs during the Intifada, Israel was responding by assasinating the leaders of Hamas, etc. Now that Hamas and Hizbollah are at least acting in a slightly more civilized manner by targeting Israeli troops, Israel is responding by targeting Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and the civilian infrastructure (bridges, power plants, etc.).

If Israel is hoping that the next time around Palestinian voters will exercise their democratic rights by electing more moderate leaders, this doesn’t exactly seem the right way to go about it.

The Department of Homeland Patronage

2006-07-12T18:27:00.000-04:00

The New York Times (remember them, the traitorous al-Qaeda sympathizers) published an article today about something that the Department of Homeland Security calls their 'National Asset Database'.

"The database is used by the Homeland Security Department to help divvy up the hundreds of millions of dollars in antiterrorism grants each year, including the program announced in May that cut money to New York City and Washington by 40 percent, while significantly increasing spending for cities including Louisville, Ky., and Omaha." (NYT, 7/12/06)

The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security published a report (.pdf) Tuesday that criticizes the database as containing many seemingly anomolous or outright head scratching oddities in the Deaprtment's site priorities. Some of the 'assets' listed in the report are among others, 'Old McDonald's Petting Zoo', 'The Amish Country Popcorn Factory', 'the Mule Day Parade', 'The Sweetwater Flea Market', 'Nix's Check Cashing', 'Anti-Cruelty Society' and 'Bean Fest'. From a higher level, New York is listed as having only 2% of the nations banking and financial sector assets, ranking it just behind North Dakota. Of total assets, New York ranks as number 3, behind Indiana and Wisconsin. Nebraska ranks at number 7, just ahead of California, our most populous state.

The Times quotes Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), “Now we know why the Homeland Security grant formula came out as wacky as it was. This report is the smoking gun that thoroughly indicts the system.” The 2006 budget for the Department of Homeland Security in $41.1 billion. Usually when a system for handing out that amount of money makes absolutely no sense, it isn't an accident.

Why would Indiana get so much of that money? Well, the Republican governor of Indiana is a man named Mitch Daniels. Up until June 2003, Mr. Daniels worked in the White House as Bush's Director of the Office of Management and Budget. During his tenure as the administration's budgetary watch dog, a $236 billion federal budget surplus evaporated into a $400 billion deficit. From 1993 until his administration appointment, Mr. Daniels served as an executive at Eli Lilly & Co. Interestingly, Daniels's name was mentioned as being involved in the insertion of the "Midnight Rider" of the Homeland Security Act in 2002. The bill contained a provision added at the last minute that would block lawsuits against Eli Lilly and Company over the production of a controversial vaccine preservative called "thimerosal" which is 49.6% mercury. Parents of autistic children claim this preservative has caused autism in thousands of children (source, Wikipedia.com). Not exactly something related to 'homeland security'. What a guy! Huzzah for bringing integrity back to the White House!

The other oddity in the database, Wisconsin, is also interesting. Tommy Thompson served as Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services until 2005. Prior to that he was governor of - you guessed it - Wisconsin. Thompson is currently working in the private sector, no doubt building up a war chest for a Presidential run in 2008. In August 2005 he announced that he was considering forming an exploratory committee for a possible Presidential campaign.

The Department of Homeland Security's asset database, doesn't publish a complete list of all sites, but I bet if a map of those sites was put next to a national Congressional district map, there would be a lot more of these interesting 'coincidences'.

At this point it's fairly obvious that the four year old Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than another political patronage machine. Then again, Bush and company are running things like a 21st century version of Tammany Hall on a national level, complete with election tampering, so why are we surprised. I guess once the people in states like California and New York start voting Republican in national elections, then they'll be able to feel as safe as the 5 employees of the Amish Country Popcorn factory in Berne, Indiana.

Novak Speaks - finally

2006-07-12T12:18:00.001-04:00

Conservative columnist and CNN curmudgeon Robert Novak finally broke his long held silence about his role in the Valerie Plame leak investigation in his column on July 12:

"...One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information... Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity."

Novak still hasn't exposed his 'primary source' of Plame's identity, though the list of who it could be is shorter than a list of people who think that Barry Bonds is clean. 'Scooter' Libby can be ruled out, since he has quit his post as Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff and is already under indictment. As I've said before, my money is on Dick Cheney himself.

The real damage to national security with this politically motivated leak, as the main stream media HASN'T reported, wasn't that Plame's identity as a CIA operative was exposed. The real damage is that the entire 'brass plate' operation that she was a part of was exposed. This CIA front operation was called Brewster Jennings and Associates and was setup in the mid 1990's to help gain intelligence on various country's nuclear weapons programs. We'll never know how many other undercover CIA operatives and non-CIA sources were compromised, endangered or perhaps even killed due to this. If this did happen, the longtime CIA policy is that it will never be made public. Additionally, this leak of Plame's and BJ&A's real identity, had to have hurt the CIA's ongoing efforts to acquire reliable human intelligence on WMD programs.

Also, in another one of the curious coincidences that seem to happen with these shadow affairs, the Army has announced that it is ending it's contract with Halliburton to provide worldwide logistical support for it's troops. "Pentagon leaders decided multiple contractors would give them better prices, more accountability and greater protection if a one contractor fails to perform..." (Washington Post, 7/12/06). Halliburton is the company that Dick Cheney used to run, between his stint as Secretary of Defense under the first Bush and his current stint as VPOTUS, becoming VERY wealthy in the process.

Hmmm, Washington D.C. these days seems to be quite fertile ground for coincidence.

The Half Measure

2006-07-12T10:38:00.000-04:00

The Pentagon announced in a July 7 memo that suspected terrorist detainees, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, are entitled to treatment consistent with 'Common Article 3' of the Geneva Conventions:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. (source: International Committee of the Red Cross)

This is an about face of the administrations stated policy that 'non-combatant' detainees did not fall under the protection of the Geneva conventions. "The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said." (Washington Post - 7/12/06)

This announcement comes on the heels of the Supreme Court 5-3 ruling in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down the legality of the administrations use of "military tribunals". The legal procedures used in these tribunals forbid among other things, calling defense witnesses and being able to see any of the evidence that is being used by the prosecution. To me that sounds like it should be illegal and is a legal stone's throw away from the 'procedures' that Saddam Hussein is claiming he used before executing over 100 residents of Dujaill in his ongoing trial.

So after years of international and domestic outcry about the treatment and legal status of the Guantanamo detainees and others around the world, from institutions like Amnesty International, the ACLU and the United Nations, this administration is finally changing it's tune only after the Supreme Court declared it illegal and the Congress threatened to pass legislation to declare it illegal. I suppose this is the current administration's idea of checks and balances: they'll finally give in when both the Supreme Court and Congress AND the entire international community lines up against them and/or threatens legal action.

Representative government anyone?

2006-07-07T10:51:00.000-04:00

Three term Connecticut Senator and 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman has a little problem. The good people from the state of Connecticut that he represents in the Senate want a better plan for Iraq, whether it be an immediate pull-out, a timetable of some sort or a redeployment on the 'horizon' as Jack Murtha has proposed. On the Iraq issue however, Lieberman wants to do whatever George Bush thinks we should do. The way our government is supposed to work (and sometimes does), when the people don't like how they're being mis-represented they will seek an alternative candidate, even within the same party.

Enter Ned Lamont. Lamont is a multi-millionaire cable TV businessman, local Greenwich town politician and a Democratic alternative to Lieberman. A Quinnipiac University poll from June 8 showed Lieberman's lead slip to 57% from 62% in May. On July 6, the two engaged in a relatively fiery debate, that showed Lamont to be an able debater and speaker, despite his deficit of debate experience to the veteran Lieberman.

Let's face it: With the exception of the one issue of Iraq and in a general sense, all foreign policy issues, Joe Lieberman is a moderate Democrat. On domestic issues: healthcare, tax policy, the environment, etc. his policies are solidly Democratic.

My big problem with Lieberman (a Senator from my home state) and Clinton by the way (a senator from my current state), is that they are not representing the wishes of their constituents on the issue of Iraq. The entire Congress, not just the House, is supposed to be beholden to the voters that sent them there, not just to exclusively vote according to their own beliefs or to position themselves for a run at a higher office (listening Hillary?).

This goes to the big knock that many registered Democrats have against their own party. That too many times, they will pull the "D" lever, but have to hold their nose while doing so. I experienced this first hand when I voted for Mark Green for mayor in NYC in 2001, but was kind of glad that Bloomberg won anyway. Green was clearly lacking in the integrity department. The next time, instead of voting for Ferrer, I just stayed home. Ferrer was clearly lacking in the competency department.

Maybe having Lamont on the Democratic ticket in Connecticut will actually help take back the vulnerable House seats there. Instead of staying home or having to 'hold their noses', registered Democrats and independents will actually get out and vote because they'll have something to vote FOR.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

2006-07-06T00:27:00.000-04:00

A letter by yours truly in response this article on Salon.com by Nir Rosen, 'Did the invasion make things worse in Iraq?'

This recital of examples of Saddam's day to day methods for squelching any form of dissent (a law against re-selling a car built before 1978?!?!) begs a big question. What was the U.S. - the beacon of freedom and human rights in the world at the time - doing throughout the 1980's when his despotic ways were becoming apperant? The answer should be that we were loudly denouncing Saddam's actions and working to align world opinion and actions against him. Sadly this is not the case. No, our foreign policy apparatus was holding it's collective nose and cozying up to this thug. This was for 2 reasons: 1.) He was at war with Iran and we were still smarting from the Iran hostage crisis. Saddam was no less ruthless than the Ayatollahs, but at least he never tweaked our nose in front of the whole world. and - 2.) Oil. Specifically petro-politics. The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979, got the attention of many a myopic policy wonk who started proposing foreign policy solutions straight out of "The Prince" or in many cases, straight from the boardgame "Risk".

Saddam was only our friend because he was the enemy of our enemy. Throughout history, this has resulted in many problems almost all of the time. The blood-thirsty attack dog will eventually turn on the master. Another example of this from the same era, is a certain tall, bearded, former CIA friend and pupil now residing and making home videos in the mountains somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This hipocracy, though ignored by our own main stream media, is VERY obvious to many people in many other regions (e.g. "The Arab Street"). Still wondering why we're so hated by so many?

It Speaks

2006-06-30T11:35:00.000-04:00

Osama bin-Laden released his 41st public announcement during George Bush's tenure this week. On the audio tape, he expresses surprise that Musab al-Zarqawi was found and killed earlier in the month and that:

"Abu Musab had clear instructions to focus his fight on the occupiers, particularly the Americans and to leave aside anyone who remains neutral. But for those who refused [neutrality] and stood to fight on the side of the crusaders against the Muslims, then he should kill them whoever they are, regardless of their sect or tribe."

Clearly the relationship between bin-Laden and Zarqawi had been a strained one and this newest tape seems to be an effort to make it appear that the relationship was cozier than it perhaps appeared. His surprise may be to try to put to rest rumors that he or al-Qaeda may have been a source of the intel that pointed us to him, since al-Qaeda saw Zarqawi as a rogue. It may be an oblique comparison, but in his first term, George Bush held only 16 press conferences. During that same time, Osama bin-Laden issued a total of 26 audio and video taped statements. In others words, bin-Laden was more likely to issue a statement than Bush was to actually stand in front of a group of reporters and answer their questions (or not).

Another fact that's kind of fascinating is that since 9/11 and Bush's famous statement that he wanted bin-Laden 'dead or alive' ("I don't care, dead or alive — either way. It doesn't matter to me."), bin-Laden has released a total of 39 audio and video statements. Despite all of these tapes that somehow had to be delivered to the Arab press, we are seemeingly no closer to capturing or killing bin-Laden. It's becoming more and more obvious to anyone who receives at least some of their news from alternate sources (foreign press, independent press, etc.) that this administration will only find or kill bin-Laden when he: a) ceases to be useful to them and b) doesn't offend their business sensibilities.

This focus away from bin-Laden came though loud and clear from Bush himself, during one of his afore mentioned rare press conferences on March 13, 2002 - only 3 months after his 'dead or alive' quote:

"Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban."

I can almost picture Dick and Don sitting in a room somewhere cringing at that one. He is simply a hand puppet, and often, not even a good one. Also, "I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country". Yes, that must be why he paid so much attention to the famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

Flag or Flog

2006-06-28T14:37:00.000-04:00

Congress was at it again this week. More time wasted on yet another Constitutional amendment. This one would make it unconstitutional to burn the U.S. flag. On Tuesday the proposal fell one vote short in the Senate after a couple of days of debate. What wonderful use of our legislators' time, right up there with the anti-gay marriage amendment and proposals to make English the 'official' language of the United States. Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.... The last I checked the flag wasn't capable of feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to all children, finding an international diplomatic solution for Iraq/North Korea/Iran/Darfur/Gaza/etc., confronting global warming, balancing the budget or curing disease. Not to mention that there has hardly been any flag burnings within our borders in the last 25 years.

Party lines were definitely more blurred for this proposal than they were for the anti gay marriage amendment that was defeated recently. Many Democrats, even genuine liberal ones, were in favor and some moderate Republicans were opposed.

One thing sure, when politicians decide that it's a better use of time to protect a piece of fabric that in essence celebrates our expansionist history, than try to safeguard the lives and welfare of our nation's citizens, there's a problem.

Double your Trouble.

2006-06-22T12:48:00.000-04:00

Letter Posted to this article in Salon.com by Sidney Blumenthal about Ron Suskind's new Book, "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11"

Does everyone over 30 remember how scary the Soviet Union was for 50 years? A technologically advanced, centrally planned juggernaut with many friends in the world (including one 100 miles from Miami). But then they invaded Afghanistan, and for 9 bloody years watched the mood of their citizenry and their international prestige go very sour. There were many reasons for the downfall of the Soviet empire, but none larger than Afghanistan. 15 years ago these same neo-cons were even gleefully saying that Afghanistan was their 'Vietnam'. Except for the little detail that Vietnam didn't lead to our downfall, they would be right.

Well it seems that Vietnam was only a warm-up. Afghanistan wasn't enough of a historically proven quagmire for us. No, we had to 'double-down' and jump with two feet into another quagmire at the same time.
We can only hope that future historians won't be calling Iraq our 'Afghanistan'.

But then, hope without action is useless.

"Looters" vs. "Finders" redux...

2006-06-15T14:26:00.000-04:00

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a report June 13th that criticized FEMA for doling out up to $1.4 billion dollars for fraudulent claims, representing up to 16% of the total funds distributed. Most media outlets instantly jumped on the story downplaying the criticism of FEMA and running their stories, with pictures of - guess who? If you said black people, you are correct.

This is reminiscent of the type of coverage the Katrina disaster aftermath received right from the beginning. Example below (from the Media Awareness Network):

Now, I'm sure that a lot of the people who defrauded FEMA actually are black. But when the only photograph or video associated with a media outlet's coverage of the story shows black people, consciously or unconsciously people will assume that all of the defrauders are black. An example below is the photo that AP ran with their story.

Hmmm, that guy must have ten more of those cards in his back pocket, right? Here's an idea: how about if they ran the story with a picture of new FEMA head David Paulison, since the GAO report criticizes FEMA. Or even mention his name in the story. Or run a picture of an actual person who's been charged with fraud (many have been). Or even provide some background, like how most of the no-bid contracts handed out went to out of state firms, some of whom brought in immigrant workers and then didn't pay them, instead of hiring locals. So what, FEMA hired firms that were basically practicing slavery. Big deal! What? Regular crooks, who aren't incorporated and publicly traded, actually profited from this? Lock 'em up!

The "liberal" media? No, the media of the lowest common denominator.

Baghdad Bush

2006-06-13T12:52:00.000-04:00

On the heels of Tony Blair's visit last week and over three years after his 'victory' lap on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, George Bush made a second surprise visit to Iraq today. The 'scene of the crime' so to speak. His first visit was during Thanksgiving in 2003. The unannounced five hour visit entailed a meeting with new Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in the fortified 'Green Zone' and a meeting with some U.S. troops.

"Good to see you," exclaimed al-Maliki as they met. "Thanks for having me," Bush responded (AP). An interesting response by Bush, since Maliki only knew about the visit five minutes before Bush's arrival, so there couldn't have possibly been a formal invite, not to mention permission for him to visit given by Maliki. The fact that Bush's visit needed to be a surprise, only five hours long and that he was helicoptered into the 'Green Zone' from the airport wearing a 25 pound flak jacket all for security reasons, says pretty much all you need to know about the situation there. Additionally, the fact that Maliki wasn't told about the visit days or even hours in advance says a lot about the level trust that there really is between the White House and Iraq's leaders.

Obviously, 'Bush's brain' is hoping to get some bounce in the poll numbers from the visit which comes 6 days after the death of Musab al-Zarqawi. Another reason, that will go under the radar, is that they need to make it clear to Iran that Maliki is still our guy, despite his recent half-hearted remarks that Iraq would not support any kind of military action against Iran from their soil.

The Greased Pig

2006-06-13T10:38:00.000-04:00

"The first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them." - N. Machiavelli

It's being reported Tuesday that Karl Rove, George Bush's longtime political advisor, will most likely not be facing criminal charges related to the outing of a CIA agent's identity. The case is being investigated by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. The identity of Valerie Plame was leaked in 2003 to selected reporters by White House sources in an effort to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson, who was disputing administration claims about Iraq's pre-war WMD program. In the Washington Post, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin is quoted as saying that, "[Fitzgerald] has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges".

This will come as quite a blow to many Democrats, liberals, lefty bloggers, CIA agents working covertly and a majority of Americans, who have all been reasonably expecting that treasonous actions should be punished. This White House has made it quite apparent that anyone or relatives of anyone who dares to contradict administration propaganda will pay a price. Besides undercover CIA agents, past victims have been a few Generals (Shinsecki, Franks, etc.), an ex-General Secretary of State (Powell), and a too talkative Treasury Secretary actually possessing some common sense (O'Neill).

So, the "Turd Blossom" will live to fight - and lie, cheat and steal - another day. Tim Grieve says in Salon.com that there's the possibility of a civil suit, since Joe Wilson has raised that as a possibility in the past. Whether a civil suit is successful or not, it just doesn't feel like justice. What Rove and others in the White House did is, if not out and out treason, at least is treasonous behavior. By blowing Plame's cover, they also blew the cover of an entire ongoing CIA operation, involving other agents and intelligence sources, who were trying to produce 'human intelligence' about certain nations WMD programs. This is exactly the kind of thing that this White House professes the urgent need for. Once again though, their actions demonstrated that even national security can't get in the way of politics and their obscene lust for power.

The Benefits of Diplomacy?

2006-06-08T10:17:00.000-04:00

By now the entire world knows of the killing of 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' head sociopath, Musab al-Zarqawi. He was killed in a tactical airstrike sometime on Wednesday, after weeks of intelligence gathering and "helped by tip-offs from Iraqis and Jordanian intelligence", according to Reuters. Apparently, the crucial tip came from Iraqis living near the 'safe house' he was occupying in the small town of Hibhib near Baquba. This town lies about 25 miles from the Iranian border.

Now, there seems to be an interesting coincidence here. Zarqawi, being a Sunni, was waging sectarian violence against Shiites. Iran is a Shiite nation. When we toppled Saddam, a secular Sunni leader, and announced that Iraq should have a unity representative government, Iran had to have been quietly excited. Shiites are the largest of the three factions in Iraq, so giving Iraqi Shiites, many of whom have very close ties to Iran, more power can only play into Iran's hands down the road.

Now I wonder if anyone else finds it curious that we find and kill Zarqawi only a couple of weeks after the Bush administration finally pulled it's head out of it's derriere and actually decided to talk to the Iranians about their nuclear program? Hmmm, very coincidental.... We've been using all manner of high-tech electronic and desperate on the ground intelligence to try to find this guy for at least two years, and all the sudden, literally a couple of weeks after the slight diplomatic warm-up between ourselves and Iran, he pops up on the radar. Maybe things are a little warmer than they appear publicly. Additionally, eventhough we knew where he was, an airstrike is called in, instead of trying to capture him alive. Though if he was surrounded by large numbers of militia, in a firefight situation, he could've wound up dead anyway.

Gee, when is Musharraf in Pakistan going to ever cough up bin-Laden for us? The answer - never. He's a little to close to the whole Bush family/ bin-Laden family/ House of Saud/ Carlyle group "Axis of oil money". Not to mention, he knows about everyone's skeletons in their closets. Zarqawi? Just some un-wealthy punk out of Jordan.

The Un-War

2006-06-07T12:45:00.000-04:00

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the [U.S.] media."
- Noam Chomsky

In high school, I loved the history classes. One of the half-year classes I took was called simply "Contemporary History". This class was focused on 20th century U.S. History. The teacher was a veteran from the Vietnam era, though he only served state-side. One of the points made about the Vietnam War, is that is was nicknamed the "TV War". Almost every night on the evening news, Americans could watch video, sometimes close-up and graphic, portraying the indiscriminately violent meat-grinder that that war was. This was a historic first for any war, primarily due to technological advances, the willingness of the media to report the whole story and the government letting the 'free press' actually report what it wanted. The lesson learned by the powers that be was that the constant flow of these video and still images were seen to be a significant factor that contributed to public opinion finally souring toward the war.

As we see today, this lesson was not lost on the Pentagon. 'Embedded' journalists, the cushy 'green zone' and press restrictions are all designed to let the government control the message, not the press. Another lesson of history is that when the government controls the message it isn't called news, it's called propaganda. Furthermore, propaganda is most effective, when it doesn't appear to be propaganda. If anyone still thinks that the main stream media is actaully giving us independant news and information, they should take a much closer look. Coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan in almost any country in the world is less sanitized and controlled than it is here. In the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz cites Marty Kaplan from the Huffington Post on this subject:

"So let's see. If you take the amount of time that Greta and Rita and Anderson et al currently spend on a typical day on sensational crimes here at home... and divide that by the number of victims, and then multiply that per capita coverage times the number of Americans daily wounded or killed in the war... let's see... carry the seven... it looks like there would no time left for any of the cable channels to cover anything but casualties. No Michael Jackson, no runaway bride, no Natalee; just American troops, doing their patriotic job, and paying a terrible price."

"That the Bush administration has thoughtfully banned coverage of returning coffins; that the president has refrained from attending military funerals (can't show favoritism by being selective, can he?); that it's too dangerous for tv crews to venture out of the green zone to report on our troops; that Bush and Rumsfeld relentlessly mau-mau the press about excessive coverage of "bad news" and scant attention to all the swell progress being made: these make it especially easy for cable news, so dependent on pictures, to excuse its disproportionate blindness to war casualties."

With the advent of 'entertainment news' that more often every years seems to merit coverage as 'front page' news, news media no longer competes with itself, it now competes with 'American Idol', 'Brangelina', Britney and car chases that CNN inexplicably covers as 'breaking news' on a national level seemingly once a week. This is all by design. Entertainment news diverts the attention, primarily of women, away from real issues that will actually have an impact on their day to day lives. Just as Sports, diverts the attention of, primarily, the male populace.

What we have is one of the best propaganda mechanisms the world has ever seen, combined with high tech, muliti-media 'Bread and Circuses' that has sucked most of the oxygen out the sphere of public discussion about issues that most directly effect the public.

"Cue the Fiddles...

2006-06-05T14:28:00.000-04:00

...Rome is burning"

There are over 50 million Americans with absolutely no healthcare insurance, out of these, 9 million are children. We are in the fourth year of a war in Iraq that has so far cost over 2,500 soldiers lives, in the area of 100,000 Iraqi lives and 1 trillion dollars of taxpayer money. This war was started with faulty if not outright fabricated assumptions, with a severely flawed strategy of Panglossian assumptions that everything would go just fine, with absolutely no 'plan B' and with absolutely no end or exit strategy in sight. We are in the fifth year of an occupation in Afghanistan, that is beginning to look like Iraq looked 2 years ago when the insurgency was taking it's first baby steps. Additionally, there are many important diplomatic challenges facing us: Iran, North Korea, Israel/Palestine and now East Timor. Added to this, the still brewing genocide in Darfur.

The Federal government has been running large annual budget deficits for 6 years and the total treasury debt is now $8.37 trillion, That's about $28,000 for every man, woman and child. If you're the type of person like me who prefers to live as debt free as possible, then you might be a little pissed that if you're the average taxpayer, out of the total that you paid in Federal tax last year, you paid $1,394.00 in interest on the Federal debt. The United States economy has been growing at a good rate for the last 2 years, but the wealthy have been the primary, if not only beneficiaries of this growth. There has been job creation, but the majority of these jobs have been created by the government - this government being run by supposedly 'small government' Republicans. The remainder of these jobs are low paying service sector jobs. Compared to the millions of jobs created in the high-tech, well paying employment boom of the 1990's, these jobs are pathetic.

There is an AIDs epidemic in Africa. Avian flu has the potential to become a global pandemic that could cost tens of millions of lives and millions in this country and there is almost no preparations being made. Despite the deliberate attempts of the energy industry and their Republican lapdogs to cloud the argument, Global Warming is a potentially catastrophic problem for future generations. It is becoming harder and harder to deny that we need to take serious measures to reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions NOW.

This is a laundry list of serious issues involving the health and livelihood of ALL citizens today and even the survival of future generations, that need to be dealt with as soon as possible. With this backdrop, the Republican controlled Senate and the Republican president will be debating and discussing two issues over the next couple of weeks that they think are important: anti-gay marriage and anti-flag burning Constitutional amendments. Yes, it's election time again in the Fall so it's time to trot out all the well-worn wedge issues to fire up their Christian right base (which is neither Christian nor right, by the way).

After all, these people have no reason to be concerned about the real problems in the first three paragraphs, because god will eventually come down from his cloud and fix all that other stuff for us. As long as we don't piss him off by letting gay people get married, that is. So the rest of us intelligent, reasoning and logical people who use our brains (that they believe god gave us in the first place) to actually THINK, will have to sit and wait, while the political equivalent of trying to fly to Hawaii by flapping your arms goes on. By the way, since marriage is a religious institution, an anti-gay marriage amendment would directly contradict the anti-establishment of religion clause in the first amendment. Not that this is a surprise. These are the same people who have been ignoring the entire Bill of Rights for the last 5 years anyway.

It's so bad that even Joe Biden on Meet the Press this past Sunday, actually dropped his finely groomed political facade for a lot of the interview and seemed as pissed off as I am and everyone else should be. It was quite refreshing. For a second, I thought he was going to break down and cry.

What can we do? Call Bill Frist, Senate majority leader at (202-224-3344) or send him a message by clicking this link. Also, Arlen Spector, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee at (202) 224-4254 or send him a message here. If you live in Tennessee (Frist) or Pennsylvania (Spector), even better because you can threaten to vote them out.

Tell them to pack away their fiddles and get to work.

"Enron: The Smartest Guys in The Cell"

2006-05-25T12:54:00.000-04:00

The jury in the trial of Enron CEOs Jeff Skilling, 52 and Ken Lay, 64 came back with with a total of 25 guilty verdicts against the two men in Houston today after less than six days of deliberation. The charges included bank fraud, insider trading and securities fraud. Both men could be facing 25 years in prison and fines that are sure to be in the tens of millions of dollars. The Washington Post reports:

Enron's implosion in late 2001 put substantial pressure on the Bush administration, which had developed close ties to Lay, to distance itself from business malfeasance. Within months, President Bush mobilized federal agencies and launched a corporate fraud task force that has convicted more than 900 people, including 92 corporate presidents, 82 chief executive officers, 40 chief financial officers, 14 chief operating officers, and 17 corporate counsel or attorneys.

The behavior and eventual collapse of Enron has had many far reaching effects. The California energy crisis of 2001, which was proven to be a deliberate market manipulation by Enron to increase profits, cost the consumers and government of the state of California literally billions of dollars. Additionally, it was a contributing factor in the recall of governor Gray Davis and election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The eventual collapse of Enron destroyed the retirement account of thousands of its employees, who were encouraged to invest their 401k accounts in Enron stock right up until the bankruptcy. Finally, beyond this, Enron's collapse sent major shockwaves throughout the business economy, resulting in the downfall of their auditing firm, Arthur Anderson and involving many other large banks and investment banking firms.

There was nervousness from many ex-Enron employees that both men may have been exonerated, due the trial being in Houston and the precedence of the innocent verdict in the recent trial of HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Though these guilty verdicts are a great first step, Ken and Jeff won't be fitted for their orange jumpsuits yet. There is a probable years long appeal process soon the be underway:

Daniel M. Petrocelli, the charismatic defense lawyer for Skilling, and Michael W. Ramsey, the lead lawyer for Lay, vowed to mount years-long appeals that they claimed would exonerate their clients. Both defendants have yet to resolve civil lawsuits filed by former shareholders who seek billions of dollars. But they may have to stand in line behind the federal government, which has sought the forfeiture of Lay's $4 million penthouse apartment and Skilling's $5 million Mediterranean-style mansion, among other assets. (from The Washington Times)

For those of you who haven't seen the film "Enron: The Smartest Guys in The Room", it provides very good background to the events that precipitated this trial. It also has interviews with many of the insiders from Enron including Sherron Watkins, the whistle blower who set the investigations into motion. She in my opinion, is nothing less than an American heroine. As someone who works in a corporate environment, I know that the courage it took to do what she did, at that level and in that kind of corporate environment, is nothing less than amazing. Now, if the government could only listen to the whistleblowers within in it's own ranks.

A new VA Benefit

2006-05-22T21:58:00.000-04:00

Being an active duty serviceman or woman or a U.S. military veteran just got even a little tougher recently. The home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee was broken into in Aspen Hills, Md on May 3 and thieves stole a laptop computer and external hard drive. Normally this wouldn't be big news, but this government employee's laptop computer contained the records of 26.5 million veterans and some veterans spouses which had been taken home, against departmental policy, to work on a project. The records taken include names, birth dates and Social Security numbers. As the Washington Post reported, "The theft represents the biggest unauthorized disclosure ever of Social Security data, and it could make affected veterans vulnerable to credit card fraud if the burglars realize the value of the data, one expert said."

So on top of scores of proposed and planned closures of VA hospitals and shrinking benefits, now being a veteran also means running the very real risk of identity theft. Most likely, the thieves didn't know exactly what they had stolen. However, if they did realize it, or whoever they may have sold the laptop to realized it, the credit histories of literally millions of veterans are at risk. Additionally, this information can provide a large amount of revenue to criminal organizations or, ironically, terrorist organizations.

Predictably, in another great example of closing the barn door after the horse gets out, Sen. Larry Craig, chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee is planning to hold hearings. Additionally, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has promised "zero tolerance" for anyone using this information illegally.

If the first Gulf War, which was over in the blink of an eye, helped spawn the likes of Timothy McVeigh, how many more Timothy McVeighs is this war spawning?

2006 = 1984

2006-05-19T17:02:00.000-04:00

"When war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded."
"The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy — everything." - G. Orwell, '1984'

If you are the type of person who pays attention to what is happening in the world and this nation over the last five to ten years, then '1984' and 'The Handmaid's Tale' have to be two of the most frightening books you could possibly read. These two novels depict future distopias that our society seems to be approaching with alarming speed.

George Orwell's '1984', written about 60 years ago, has some very startling parallels in the current 'war on terrorism'. A seemingly neverending conflict, that is occurring without any kind of real national sacrifice (the military and their families excepted) with very vague and misleading reasons and goals against a shadowy enemy, that is used as an excuse to invade privacy, jail citizens without due process, manufacture news, manipulate or hide facts and in general keep the populace in a state of fear for political purposes. In the book, the war is basically a forgotten fact of life against an evil, relentless and bloodthirsty enemy (al Qaeda?) with an enigmatic, diabolical and mad leader named Goldstein whose very existence is an unanswered question (bin Laden?).

One has to ask one's self: why wasn't bin Laden captured like we were all promised he would? Because he fits the role. He is the 'shadowy mastermind' that wants to end our way of life. It doesn't seem to matter that in all his recordings and writings he has never stated that his goal is to end our way of life, much less see us all dead. But as long as our leaders keep repeating these apocalyptic statements over and over again against the backdrop of the 9/11 murders, most people buy it.

What would Orwell think if, instead of a dire warning, for some people '1984' was seen as the perfect blueprint to amass power and eliminate Freedom?

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush, December 18, 2000

"Whatever Pharma wants, Pharma gets"

2006-05-15T10:24:00.000-04:00

It's May 15, which means that if you're a senior citizen, this is your last day to sign up for the new Medicare part D drug "benefit" program without having to pay a 1% per month penalty. This new benefit, that Bush has been touting and promoting for about a year as a shining accomplishment of his administration has been widely criticized as too generous to the drug companies, far too complicated to understand for enrollees and that it doesn't provide enough coverage for certain lower income seniors. To picture what signing up for this part D coverage is like, imagine having to research and select a plan from 30 to 45 different choices from 8 to 12 different providers, each with slightly different rules and drugs that they will and won't cover. On top of this, depending on the income level of the enrollee and the cost and coverage of their current prescription plan, they have to make some rather complicated calculations simply to determine if their out of pocket costs would go up or down if they sign up for the new benefit. As a side note, ironically, many of the large pharmaceutical companies are reducing or eliminating their own independent low income drug assistance programs, citing their participation in the new part D program.

When the new plan was still being debated in Congress, many Democrats were up in arms over the fact that the proposal didn't use a 'single payer' system. In other words, the proposal refuses to use the huge buying power of the federal government to 'buy in bulk' and lower the cost of the program both to the participants and to tax payers as a whole. Michigan, Vermont and South Carolina participate in a buying cooperative and have been able to reduce their drug expense buy 25-50%. The fact that the new part D coverage doesn't do this is simply another example of this administration and the Republican Congress enacting legislation that is basically written by the industries that the legislation involves. This new plan is clearly a benefit for the large pharmaceutical companies. The "Healthy Forests" initiative, The Energy Policy act of 2005 and the "Clear Skies" act of 2003 are other examples. Famously, the indentities of the oil industry executives who helped Dick Cheney craft the legislation - the "Energy Task Force" - are still not known. This is despite a suit that was brought to reveal the names and meeting transcripts, which went all the way to the Supreme Court before being lost.

So after today, enrollees are penalized for late enrollment. The fact is, we were all penalized the moment this industry subsidy disguised as actual legislation was passed.

America's Addictions

2006-05-13T13:28:00.000-04:00

This coming Monday evening, George Bush is addressing the nation on the important subject of immigration reform. It has been said that he will announce a plan to station national guard units along the border with Mexico to "secure the border" from illegal immigrants. An economic 'Berlin Wall' if you will. However, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in; basically turning half of that city into a prison. Many other walls have been built throughout history: Hadrian's wall, The Great Wall of China, even a palisade wall of tall timbers along what is now known as Wall St in New York City. These walls were all built for protection against marauding native peoples or warrior tribes. What are our walls protecting us from, the economic devastation of cheap labor?

All this recent wringing of hands over the issue of illegal immigration reminds me of worries over another unwanted import from south of the border. The 'war on drugs' was and is fought to suppress the supply, just as building a fence and stationing soldiers on the border is done to suppress the supply of cheap labor. Similarly, much of the blame for the two problems lies with the demand half of the equation. Just as Americans have a demand or an addiction for drugs, they also have a demand, even an addiction, for cheap labor. Without the cheap labor that immigrants - documented or not - provide, almost everything would cost more. Do you eat at restaurants? I can guarantee you that your dirty dishes are washed by an immigrant and there's a good chance that your food is prepared and cooked by one as well. Do you shop for food? Purchases in the produce and meat departments will be made easier because of the cheap labor that immigrants provide. Have you bought a house in the last 5 or 10 years? That house was made more affordable because of the cheap labor pool of immigrants, legal or not. Immigrants, build our houses, mow our lawns, wash our dishes, even babysit our children. These people who hardly ever receive benefits or workplace protections, are hard working, decent people who simply want a better life for their children and they're being turned into enemies of the state. Sadly, a lot of this attitude comes from the fact that, though they enjoy the bounties of this cheap labor pool, many Americans want these people to disappear when they finish work. To disappear from our neighborhoods and towns and their children not be in the same schools with ours.

I work in a hundred year old downtown Manhattan skyscraper that has windows about four by eight feet in size that can be opened. About a month ago, a crew of workers, who I will assume were immigrants, came around to wash the windows. The man who washed the window in my office quickly washed the inside of the window. Next, my stomach dropped as I watched him, with no safety harness, climb out of the window and stand on a 1 foot wide ledge to wash the outside of the window, 150 feet above the street. Then I realized that he would be repeating this procedure perhaps more than a hundred times in a week, maybe a few thousand times in a year. All this for how much money? Probably just enough to be able to simply afford to feed and shelter himself and his family, or to send a couple of hundred dollars back to his family in their home country. These people are the bad guys? What about the maintenance company that's charging the building management thousands of dollars for this service and paying these people a fraction of that? This kind of thing is exploitation, pure and simple, and it happens everywhere in this country, everyday. Furthermore, the average American doesn't care.

People don't make the connection when they have their "fashion line" that collectively, they are the real reason that countries such as Colombia are practically owned and operated by violent drug cartels. Similarly, when someone hires the lawn care service to cut their grass for $30 a week, which then turns around and pays the immigrant who actually does the work $5, they collectively are one of the millions of Americans responsible for the current 'immigration crisis'. If this person has a teenage son at home who isn't told that it's his job to mow the lawn or simply won't, illegal immigration is the least of that person's problems.

What's Your Share?

2006-05-11T11:57:00.000-04:00

The data here is from this document on irs.gov and this document on gpo.gov

In 2005, the total U.S. Federal budget was $2.472 trillion dollars. Total revenue was $2.154 trillion dollars, leaving a budget deficit for 2005 of $318 billion dollars. This brought the total amount of public treasury debt to $7.879 trillion dollars. The net interest paid to service this debt in 2005 was $184 billion dollars. In other words, over half of the current deficit can be attributed to interest the government has to pay on the debt already outstanding. To use the analogy of a credit card, the government took a $318 billion dollar cash advance in 2005, used $184 billion of it to pay the interest on the bill and spent the rest.

In 2005, there were 132 million individual federal tax returns filed. Roughly 132 million 'households' paid a total of $927 billion dollars in federal income tax. These households also paid a total of $794 billion dollars to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Corporations paid a total of $278 billion in income tax. Estate taxes, excise taxes, custom duties and miscellaneous receipts accounted for another $154 billion.

So the average household paid the federal government a total of $13,037 in 2005. The net interest paid by the government on Treasury securities per household was $1,394. This $1,394 represents the dollar amount that is transferred from the average household to holders of U.S. government Treasury securities. It should be noted that almost all of these securities holders are either banks, financial firms, wealthy individuals or foreign governments. This $1,394 per household doesn't provide any national benefit whatsoever. It doesn't clothe or feed poor children, it doesn't go toward education, it doesn't pay more policeman or airport security screeners and it doesn't go toward providing war veterans with better healthcare. This money represents a wealth distribution from the middle class to the rich. In other words, it's a back door that makes our progressive tax system, less so. Additionally as has been publicized lately, a large portion of this Treasury interest is going to Pacific Rim countries, primarily China. Right now China is our nation's MasterCard. So far they've allowed us to run up our balance, but that can't go on forever.

Finally, so far the Iraq war has cost us about $1 trillion dollars, or about $300 billion per year. So for the Iraq War and reconstruction in 2005 the average household paid about $2,272. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they haven't gotten their money's worth?

Fundamentalist Pen Pals

2006-05-10T13:32:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, sent a 19 page, single spaced letter, to George Bush, President of the (soon to be) Christian States of America. I would say United Christian States of America, but I don't think that's how it will play out. Now, I'm sure that Ahmadinejad, a former teacher, thought that Bush would read the entire letter and reflect on it. I say it's 50/50 that he even got past page 5 - his first quote about it below is a dead giveaway.

I read the whole letter and it uses very calm, reasoned, logical and non-'kill the infidels' language to present many arguments and valid points of view about history and the current state of the world. Some topics discussed are world poverty, the 1953 coup, healthcare, Israel, the importance of tolerant religious faith, Iran's nuclear program as a peaceful technological advancement, etc. Interestingly, he didn't address our "addiction to oil" - hmmm, let's see, Iran sells oil to make money... ah, yes. Overall, the letter reads like an amalgation of almost every article I've ever read on Salon.com or in The New Yorker: thoughtful, reasoned, sincere and very aware of history.

Read the original scan here in PDF format - from the Wall Street Journal. Kind of interesting, it looks like a mimeograph from 1978....

html format here - from the Hindustan Times.

George Bush said of the letter, "It looks like it did not answer the main question that the world is asking and that is, 'When will you get rid of your nuclear program?'". Though it seems that that's not exactly what the 'world' is saying (nor that rudely), because he went on to say that, "Britain, France, Germany - coupled with the United States and Russia and China have all agreed that the Iranians should not have a weapon or the capacity to make a weapon... There is a universal agreement toward that goal and the letter didn't address that question". Well, not having the capacity to make a weapon doesn't really mean that they couldn't have a peaceful nuclear program. Indeed, Japan has a peaceful nuclear program, with a current total of 55 reactors that in 2003 produced 25% of their electricity.

With enough monitoring and controls, a peaceful Iranian program is perfectly feasible. A large majority of the Iranian people are in favor of a peaceful program - a military nuclear program, not nearly as many. Iran is a nationally proud country that grew out of the Persian empire. Her culture and cities pre-date Jesus Christ by about 2,000 years and the founding of Islam by about 3,000 years. To say that Iran shouldn't be allowed to produce nuclear energy, even with thorough monitoring, is a little insulting. We could even agree to publicly call it "safety monitoring", to allow them to save face. After all, we don't want another Chernobyl.

"There's no accounting for taste"

2006-05-07T16:32:00.000-04:00

In what seemed suspiciously like a nose-tweaking rebuke to the Salon.com led lefty blogosphere trumpeting of Steve Colbert's performance at the White House correspondents' dinner on April 29th, both Chris Matthews and Tim Russert had special features about Steve Bridges on their Sunday morning shows on May 7th. Bridges is the Bush 'look alike' whose five minute skit preceded Colbert's performance.

On 'Meet the Press', Russert actually had Steve Bridges on the show and interviewed him for 15 full minutes. Utterly ridiculous. Chris Matthews grinningly proclaimed that Bridges was much funnier than Colbert. I agree that I'm sure many people would find the 'look alike' skit funnier than Colbert's performance, especially those in the main stream media who were prime targets of Colbert's venom.

What Colbert delivered to Bush and the MSM that night were hammer blows of the anger that most of us are feeling, cloaked in the buttery velvet of mocking satire. The receiver of this type of attack can either 1.) Believe the 'act' and appear the dupe, 2.) remove the 'cloak' and address the valid arguments head-on (not a good idea in this case), or as was done all week in the MSM, 3.) declare the whole thing not funny or, better yet, not entertaining.

What Bridges delivered was cotton candy.

Not an Option - A Duty

2006-05-04T11:10:00.000-04:00

**Posted to this article in salon.com**

"Decide. Announce. Type it up. Run spell check. Go home."

I believe there's volumes to be said about the fact that a solid majority of the electorate want easy black and white answers to questions that we as the most economically powerful nation in the world face. One explanation for Bush's prior popularity was his quip that "I don't do nuance". Well, unfortunately, that's how most people prefer to operate - the MSM included. The MSM would prefer not to try to sell something that their viewers/readers don't want to buy in the first place. What too many of them don't understand is that this isn't an option for them, it's their duty.

Much has been also been said about this administration's use of fear as a tool. However, this administration also plays to a couple of other base traits: laziness and greed. Liberalism was at it's best when it challenged the American people to do better - together: Labor reform, the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, the Great Society, Civil Rights and the list goes on. The message was that some sacrifice today will make us a better nation tomorrow. Today, the long view doesn't exist and even when it seems like it does, there's no substance and never a price to be paid today. Hollow promises. No leadership.

Choosing to believe lies out of sheer convenience when we know the real truth, makes us no better than the ones telling the lies.

Kettle says to Pot: "What'd you call me?"

2006-05-03T20:58:00.000-04:00

Maybe it was Amnesty International reports, the domestic criticism, the recent denunciation by the U.N. or just the general outcry from the international community at large, but the decision has finally been made to return many of the 490 "unlawful combatants" held at Camp Gitmo to their home countries. In another one of those funny yet sad twists of fate, the administration has fears that many of these people, will be treated poorly or tortured by their own governments.

Tim Golden of The New York Times reported on April 30th that "Washington's insistence on humane treatment for the detainees in their native countries comes after years in which Guantanamo has been assailed as a symbol of American abuse and hypocrisy - a fact not lost on the governments with which the United States is now negotiating." Furthermore:

"It is kind of ironic that the U.S. government is placing conditions on other countries that it would not follow itself in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib," said a Middle Eastern diplomat from one of the countries involved in the talks. He asked not to be named to avoid criticizing the United States in the name of his government. (NYT 4/30)

In addition, through a practice called 'rendition', a word which sounds like something that could happen in a meat packing plant, dozens if not hundreds of other detainees have already been returned to their home nations on secret flights. This is usually done with full knowledge that they would be tortured upon their return.

So some of these people have already been thrown from the Tiger's cage to the Lions' den unofficially for the last 2 years. Now that some of the detainees are being released officially, all of the sudden there are different standards. Standards, by the way, that our government itself doesn't even live up to.

According to a State Department human rights report released in March, the Saudi authorities have used "beatings, whippings and sleep deprivation" on Saudi and foreign prisoners. The report also noted "allegations of beatings with sticks and suspension from bars by handcuffs."

"We're operating in an environment where we don't want to send people to a country where we are going to find out two weeks later that they've been tortured," a State Department official said. Referring to Saudi Arabia, he said, "We hope to reach the point soon where we are comfortable with the humanitarian arrangements."

Sleep deprivation? Beatings? I guess the Saudis got Rumsfeld's memo too.

NPR: Slipping into The Abyss?

2006-05-02T12:06:00.000-04:00

The morning of May 2, NPR news reader Karl Kassel referred to participants in the Immigration protests of May 1 as "Illegal Immigrants". Interestingly, the local WNYC news coverage referred to the same people as "Undocumented Workers".

Not all public radio news is created equal.

More Disturbing Pentagon News

2006-05-01T20:05:00.000-04:00

These are excerts from this article in the Washington Post by Ann Scott Tyson, on April 23:

New Plans Foresee Fighting Terrorism Beyond War Zones
Pentagon to Rely on Special Operations
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials."
"Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.
For example, SOCOM has dispatched small teams of Army Green Berets and other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies in about 20 countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America, where they do operational planning and intelligence gathering to enhance the ability to conduct military operations where the United States is not at war.
And in a subtle but important shift contained in a classified order last year, the Pentagon gained the leeway to inform -- rather than gain the approval of -- the U.S. ambassador before conducting military operations in a foreign country, according to several administration officials. "We do not need ambassador-level approval," said one defense official familiar with the order."

I find this last paragraph of the article to be the most telling. In a ‘War on Terror’ (a stupid name to begin with - like having a War on Existential Angst) the strategy HAS to be 95% political with a heavy sprinkling of P.R. and 5% military. Just ask any military historian who knows anything about military history. These pinheads who claim that this isn’t a ‘conventional war’ (duh!) are still knee-jerk, shoot first ask questions later, “Remember the Maine” gunboat diplomats. Hell, in Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes, they even have their own modern day version of W.R. Hearst. We’ve been here many times before folks and it usually boils down to economic hegemony at gunpoint.

Stephen Colbert - Man of the Year

2006-05-01T14:43:00.000-04:00

Wow! Jonathan Swift, Moliere, Voltaire, Thomas Nast and now - Steve Colbert. Oh yeah, put Jon Stewart in there somewhere too...

I watched a profile of Stephen Colbert on "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, unaware that he was the featured entertainer at the White House Correspondents' Association awards dinner the night before. To say that Colbert's satirical attack was incredibly hilarious would be an understatement - with a great assist by Helen Thomas, I might add. Let's see, I can already predict that new White House Spokesperson Tony Snow (who is shown laughing at one point, when Colbert comments on his recent hiring) will not call on Thomas for a question for at least six months. See the performance for yourself here and here is a great analysis by Michael Scherer on Salon.com.

When the camera shows GWB, who was literally sitting about 15 feet to Colbert's right, much of the time he clearly seems to be pissed. The cut shots to the crowd full of the D.C. press corp were even more telling. The way many of them were reacting, you'd think Colbert was holding a kitten over the whirring blades of a food processor. To be fair, there were many snickers and laughs detected, but Colbert received little or no applause in the entire half an hour of his performance. This coverage by CNN is typical, giving much more time to the stupid Bush look-a-like skit that lasted all of five minutes.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of fall-out, if any, will come of this... Hmmm, what does my GUT say.

If it Ain't broke...

2006-04-27T13:59:00.000-04:00

Thanks to big "ML" for getting me going on this

The last I checked, the internet was working pretty damn well. I watched an entire live streaming Red Sox game Tuesday night on MLB.com (they beat Cleveland 8 - 6, thank you very much). I receive e-mails, send e-mails, blog, surf, pay bills, buy stuff and download stuff without any trouble or undue slowness. Well if the big bandwidth providers get their way, that could all change.

Right now, the internet, as it always has, operates on the 'network neutrality' principle. Basically, data packets are transmitted on a first-come first-served basis, without regard to where they originate or where they are going. This has spurred enormous innovation and entrepreneurship because of the open competition spurred by low barriers to entry. In the current environment, the consumer gets to decide which content and services are worthy of the marketplace.

The large telcos: Verizon, AT&T, etc. who build and provide the infrastructure of the internet want a different set of rules and so far, Congress, most of whom eat at these companies cash troughs, are more than willing to let them make the rules. For years and years, these companies built infrastructure and strung 'dark fiber' (unused fiber bandwidth) to make money on internet traffic to come. These companies DO make money from providing bandwidth now. Most people with DSL now are paying anywhere from $20 to $50 dollars a month to have high 'downstream' bandwidth. what most people don't realize is that the Amazon.com's and Googles of the world also have to purchase very large bandwidth data circuits (T-1s, OC-3s, etc.) to connect their hosting servers to the internet itself, usually from multiple backup 'mirror' sites. These large data circuits, as you may guess, are very expensive and the telcos make tens of millions of dollars every year from them. So these providers - large and small - aren't exactly getting a "free ride" on the internet as AT&T chief Edward Whitacre (shown) might have you believe. No, they don't make money directly from their 'backbone' circuits, but they do collect larges tolls at the on-ramps and the off-ramps. In 2005, AT&T had net income of 4.7 billion dollars and Verizon had net income of 7.3 billion dollars, so let's just cut the crap that these companies are somehow going into insolvency if they don't get these concessions.

These telcos have seen the deep pockets of the large content providers and internet retailers that have prevailed in this highly competitive environment and have the idea that if they charge them extra money to provide "premium bandwidth", they can increase their own profits. Of course, the telcos are saying that this extra revenue will allow them to 'build the next generation of data networks', though this is something they've already been doing for many years and continue to do. In this tiered bandwidth environment content providers and retailers who don't or can't pay up for 'premium bandwidth' to line the telcos' pockets, will probably receive slower service. If you browse and purchase books from Amazon, the speed would be marginally faster. If you go to a smaller book e-tailer like say Alibris, Powells or new e-tailer trying to start up, the page loads could be noticeably slower, bordering on unusable. Simply put, the telcos want an environment where the supplier gets to decide which content and services are worthy of the marketplace. History has shown that this hardly ever works - "New Coke" anyone?

Snow Job

2006-04-26T14:57:00.000-04:00

So it's official, Tony Snow is moving from Fox News to the White House briefing room. I suppose now he'll have to tone down the Pro-Bush rhetoric a little and maybe even do a little fence mending, since at times, he has been rather unkind to his new boss on the air:

"No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives." - 9/30/05
“George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” - 11/11/05
“George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” - 3/17/06

Well, it seems that the Crawford Cowboy isn't enough of a right-winger for Tony's liking, but I'm sure he and Dick will get along great.

Speaking of Dick, Tony Snow is yet another inheritance from the G.H.W. Bush administration. In his pre-Fox News career, he was a speechwriter for George's dad. I just hope that this will forever put to rest the illusion that Fox is or ever was "Fair and Balanced", if they still even bother using that slogan.

At least Fox News' right-wing bias is blatently obvious and primarily stems from the ideology of the top man, Rupert Murdoch and his pit bull in charge of Fox News, Roger Ailes. However, the bias of many other news outlets, is much more subtle and therefore, I believe, much more dangerous.

My typical Sunday morning viewing is Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and John McLaughlin. I've always respected John McLaughlin since I started watching him around 1988. He does seem to be fairly even-handed in his pompous poo-pooing of political philanderers, as he might say himself. His "McLaughlin Group" broadcast on April 23rd, was a 'special topic' show focusing on the healthcare crisis without the usual four pundit panel. His four 'special' panel members were as follows:
Hank McKinnell - CEO, Pfizer Corp. - He runs a gigantic Pharmaceutical company.
Jay Crosson - Executive Director, Permanente Federation - He runs a huge HMO and also admitted to sitting on a federal "Medicare payment advisory committee".
Susan Dentzer - Healthcare reporter for the 'Newshour' on PBS
and finally,
Mike Leavitt - Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services - Need I say more...

The name Hank McKinnell may sound familiar, since he stars in some of the television commercials that Pfizer - and most other big pharma companies - waste hundreds of millions of dollars on every year. But I'll get to that later.

Well, as you might expect, even with all those great healthcare minds on the panel, the question of why we spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare while the other industrialized nations spend an average of 8%, was never figured out. At one point, Mike Leavitt very theatrically held up a ballpoint pen and tried to blame the extra $1 trillion dollars on paperwork. Wow! That sure is a lot of paper, Mike! I think if they actually had a consumer healthcare advocate or an economist on the panel who's devoted their life to analyzing this kind of stuff that the answer would be fairly obvious. That being, that the rest of the industrialized world has universal coverage, therefore has pushed the profit incentive out of providing healthcare. Poor quality you say? I guess that's why these nations have higher average lifespans than ours.

Why was this panel packed with corprate healthcare big-wigs? As they say, "follow the money" and in T.V. that usually leads to the advertisements. There were no Pfizer ads. To have Hank's kindly face on the "News" show and also on the commercials paying for the "News" show would've been a little too obvious. However, if you click the link to the show site above, the Pfizer logo is there, alongside Kaiser Permanente's and others. God bless journalistic integrity! There were at least 3 ads that I counted during the broadcast for Kaiser Permanente. Interestingly, I never remember seeing a Kaiser Permanente ad during the "McLaughlin Group" prior to this show. Interesting indeed.... Was Mr. Crosson invited on the panel and then his company all the sudden decided to buy ad-time for the show, or was it the other way around? We'll never know. I suppose that the hypothetical consumer advocate or economist just couldn't pay the price of admission.

Keep in mind, examples like this are only the tip of the iceberg. It's obvious that even the veil of the illusion of propriety has been thrown off.

We do know that Mike Leavitt's employer didn't need to buy any ad-time - after all, he has his own news network.

'The Donald'

2006-04-21T15:16:00.000-04:00

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Don and Saddam in happier times (1983).

Calls for the firing or resignation of Donald Rumsfeld are reaching 10 on the Richter scale this week after more public calls for him to step down from recently retired generals. Rumsfeld has weathered similar storms in the past after Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi insurgency, claims of poor planning in the leadup to the war, no 'plan B' in Iraq, the failure to capture Bin-Laden, etc. That said, the 'Decider-in-Chief' has shown nothing but seemingly incomprehensible loyalty to his Koan speaking Secretary of Defense.

During the Vietnam War, though Robert McNamara did serve for seven full years until 1968, there were five different Defense Secretaries, interestingly followed immediately by Rumsfeld himself in 1975. Including this 14 month tenure under Gerald Ford, if he manages to stay on until the end of Bush's term, Donald Rumsfeld will have served longer than any Secretary of Defense since World War II. Furthermore, if one includes the office of Secretary of War that became the Secretary of Defense in 1947, Rumsfeld will have served longer than any Secretary of War/Defense in the our country's entire history (from Wikipedia). Is it just me, or does this seem rather, shall we say, significant.

Now, if as of today Iraq was relatively peaceful with a well trained professional army instead of teetering on the brink of full blown civil war, if the U.S. casualty count in Iraq was a few hundred instead of a couple thousand and climbing, if the Taliban in Afghanistan were truly defeated, if Osama Bin-Laden had been captured and was standing trial (ideally in the Hague), if Abu Ghraib and the other torture controversies never happened, if the Pentagon hadn't been turned into Halliburton's personal piggy bank, if our soldiers had enough body armor and armored Humvees, etc, etc, I could understand the long tenure. Hell, if even a couple of these things were true today I could understand it. But they're not, and as has been said, Bush's 'Bubble' needs some more 'Air holes'. I truly believe that even if his approval ratings go to 1 percent and the Republicans lose control of both houses of Congress in November, Bush still wouldn't even so much as consider asking for Rumsfeld's pink slip.

How long would Rumsfeld last in the board room of the other 'Donald'? About a nanosecond.

A Little Recent History...

2006-04-21T13:40:00.000-04:00

Essay on 'The Contract with America'
(The following was published in 'Lit' magazine, February 1995 when Mikeweb was known as 'El Ciego')

Not everyone has heard of the Republican party's "Contract with America", fewer know what issues it addresses and fewer still understand all the solutions that it offers. The 'contract' was published last fall in T.V. Guide magazine, with much fanfare by the Republican National Committee, who could smell Democratic blood in the water with the election looming in November. The rest is history. The 'contract', or so they would like to believe, gave the Republicans control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in forty years. It is a well conceived gimmick that gave the Republican party an appearance of solidarity and purpose in the face of Clinton's and the Democrats' perceived lack of focus. Kind of like the N.F.L. vs. Major League baseball.

The major subjects addressed in the 'contract' include: a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, anti-crime measures, Welfare reform, tax reform, legal reform, changes to Social Security, term limits and unfunded mandate reform. The 'contract' promises to bring these issues to a vote within the first 100 days of this Congress, without promising that they will necessarily be passed. The person most closely associated with the "Contract with America" has to be Newt Gingrich, R-Geo, the new Speaker of the House. Gingrich has left no doubt in anyone's mind as to who is in charge. In his brief tenure as Speaker, Gingrich, a former college professor, has been at the center of a firestorm of activity, controversy and allegations much to the chagrin of many veteran Democrats and Republicans alike. At best, Gingrich is a loose cannon with some good ideas, at worst he's a nutjob who will be more of a detriment than a benefit.

On surface the "Contract with America" seems to have some good points, but upon closer inspection is revealed to be the same combination of Dickensian social ideas and 'wave of the magic wand' fiscal solutions that have been the hallmark of Republican policy and rhetoric for fifteen years. The tax reform and fiscal ideas, particularly the balanced budget amendment, have come under increasing scrutiny by leading Democrats as well as economic experts. The ability of the government to spend more than it takes in, although abused over the last fifteen years, is actually beneficial by helping to smooth out the business cycle. Furthermore, as Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., stated, "Amending the Constitution in this fashion is a major operation on the Constitution. And I don't think we ought to perform a lobotomy... without people being informed of the cost of the operation and the condition of the patient...." The amendment itself proposes to balance the budget by the year 2002. However, Republican leaders, despite prodding by Democrats, haven't been able to offer even general proposals on how to accomplish this. Laura Tyson, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has stated that passage of the amendment could lead to "greater volatility" in interest rates and increase "downward risk to the economy". All this aside it seems unlikely that three-fourths of the states would slit their own throats by ratifying an amendment that could cut deeply into the money that they receive from the Federal government.

More fiscal 'magic' in the 'contract' involves reduction of the capital gains tax and indexation to inflation, 'neutral cost recovery' and unfunded mandate reform. Although they seem to be hedging, Republicans amazingly still believe that reducing tax rates will not reduce revenues severely. This time it's 'Laffer-curve VI: the resurrection', I've met the economist Art Laffer, who came up with this disproven theory, and I truly believe he would make a very successful used car salesman. In testimony before the House Ways and Means committee, Professor Calvin Johnson of the University of Texas stated that the 'neutral cost recovery system' plan "involves a number of serious errors" which include scoring the proposal as a revenue raiser when it actually would be "a costly revenue loser". Martin Sullivan of the American Enterprise Institute also testified that the plan would cost about $160 billion over the next ten years while commenting that "you do not need a Ph.D. in economics to know that there is something fishy about this.... " On the other hand, unfunded mandate reform, to hold the Federal government financially responsible for tasks that it delegates to the states, has some merit. Certainly states have been clamoring for it for years. The only problem is that the 'contract' fails to address how this will be paid for. Its fairly simple, either programs are paid for and controlled Federally or paid for Federally and controlled on the state level. If Republicans are looking to shrink the size of the Federal government, this doesn't seem the way to do it.

The bottom line is that the "Contract with America" promises to eliminate the budget deficit, make it harder to relegate costs to the states while proposing various other tax incentives to families and small businesses. The only proposal in the 'contract' designed to pay for all this is a reduction of the capital gains tax. Maybe too many of these Republicans are the type of people who also think pro-wrestling is real. As House minority leader, Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said January 27 at a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors: "I think my greatest concern about the so-called contract is that if you add it all up... in its totality it causes a further huge hole or breach in our national budget which, last night, we decided by a two-thirds vote that we wanted to balance over the next seven years." To juxtapose this, on February 6, Bill Clinton unveiled his 1996 budget proposal, which proceeded to collect more mud in its first hours than Primus saw all day at Woodstock. Clinton over the last two years has quietly made some progress on the budget deficit and this budget continues realistically and honestly on that hard path. Compared to the gimmickry of the Republican proposals, the choice seems obvious.

The other proposals in the 'contract' are, not suprisingly, popular among voters but by and large treat only the symptom and not the disease. In all fairness, these are the types of solutions that come from both Republicans and Democrats. Killing more citizens with the death penalty and building more prisons instead of giving potential criminals a better education early on and therefore more of a choice. Gutting the Welfare program, instead of providing single mothers with free daycare so they can pursue work, or better yet, an education. Investments in human capital will pay dividends for a long time by producing honest and tax-paying citizens instead of wards of the state. The over-riding symptom is poverty, but the disease is the lack of well paying jobs and this nations growing income inequity. As long as its more profitable to steal, deal drugs or draw Welfare than it is to work at one of the many low paying service 'Mc-jobs' that are available, a certain percentage of people will choose to do so. The next time you ask yourself why so many people are unemployed when you see help wanted signs at every 'Brad-Mc-Stop and-King' out there its because these jobs can barely allow one person to live, nevermind if you're trying to raise a family and as for saving for retirement or a child's education, you'd better keep playing lotto.

In a brief phone interview, Jeff Muthersbaugh, press secretary for Rep. Gary Franks, R-Ct, confirmed that Mr. Franks did sign the 'contract' and is dedicated, as the 'contract' states, to trying to bring a vote the proposals contained therein. He also stated that Mr. Franks' votes on each issue would depend on "the language contained in specific proposals brought to the floor" and whether the proposals are "good for the district and for the state." So far Republicans have to be pleased with the results the "Contract with America" has provided, while the smart ones may still be hedging their political bets. As to whether the Republicans use the 'contract' as a launch pad to the White House in 1996, that remains to be seen. Maybe as the proposals it contains are exposed to the bright light of scrutiny, they will wilt, or maybe not.

For those interested in seeing the "Contract with America" a copy may be obtained by calling the Republican National Committee at (202) 863 8500, just to hear the excitement in their ambitious young voices is worth the price of the call. It can also be purchased for $8.95 at B. Daltons bookstore.

Anyone agreeing or disagreeing with El Ciego's opinions are encouraged to write: Lit Magazine/ 13 Library pl./ Danbury, Ct. 06810.

Christians vs. chri$tian$

2006-04-11T15:24:00.000-04:00

"I’m Jewish. Thank you. I’m not an expert on the New Testament. But I know that if you cut out all the passages where Jesus talks about helping the poor, helping the least among us, if you literally took a pair of scissors and cut out all those passages, you’d have the perfect box to smuggle Rush Limbaugh’s drugs in." Al Franken - more here

I'm no expert on the Bible myself, but I do know that Jesus Christ taught love, peace, tolerance, turning the other cheek, throwing out the money changers, etc. He didn't preach the shooting or bombing of doctors who perform abortions, "accidentally" dropping bombs on and shooting missiles at innocent men, women and children so that they may be "free" (and give us their oil) or depriving our children and mortgaging the future of generations of children to come so that the wealthiest among us may become even more wealthy. Of course, invoking Christ to legitimize very un-Christian acts is nothing new: the Crusades, the Spanish and other inquisitions, the forced prostletizing of so called primitive races, etc.

Additionally, throughout history, many organized religions have been little more than subtle or not so subtle tools of influence. Indeed, for a thousand years up until the 19th century, the church as an institution in Europe weilded an enormous amount of political power and coincidentally, was enormously corrupt. No wonder the age of enlightenment beginning with Rousseau, continuing with the American and French revolutions, "Jeffersonian" democracy (seperation of Church and State) and ending with the likes of Marx and Engels professed varying degrees of disdain for organized religion and in some cases, even questioned God's existence. Are we entering an age of "endarkenment", for want of a better word? The increased criticism of scientific advancement, the push for more and more limits on women's reproductive rights, the rampant corruption in the houses of power and religious political influence are all phenomena that were practically institutionalized up until 300 years ago with no dissent tolerated.

It seems that most of what passes for Christianity today, at least according to the Republican party, is the Ten Commandments, Great Flood, Pillar of Salt, ten Plagues, etc. Old Testament version of Christianity. The only problem is, Jesus wasn't really a major player in the angry and vengeful world of the O.T. I do know that Jesus' last name is where we get the word 'Christian' to begin with, so it seems to follow that Christianity is supposed to teach love, tolerance, etc.

It's obvious that certain quasi-fundementalist religious leaders seeking political and social influence for their un-Christian, "O.T." brand of religion are to some extent using the "Trojan horse" of the Republican party to give their ideas the force of law. Basically, forcing all of us to live by the beliefs of their particular religion. If this is allowed to continue at it's current pace, the seperation of Church and State - one of the main pillars of our Democracy as envisioned by our founding fathers - is all but dead. I hope other people find this as alarming as I do.

To top it off, the Republican party is and always was the party that is "friendly to business". Taxes too high? Too many safety or environmental regulations? Workers and unions giving you trouble? Tired of having your tax money wasted on schools, health care, the poor and their children? Don't worry, they're in your corner. Republicans are the party of the "Money Changers"! Instead of casting them out, many Christians, or more accurately "the religious right", have jumped into bed with them.

Hmmm... WWJD

John Kerry talks with Tim Russert

2006-04-10T19:41:00.000-04:00

This Sunday, April 9, "Meet the Press" dispensed with the reporter roundtable at the end of the hour and Tim Russert spoke only to newsmakers. Well, there's always "The McLaughlin Group" afterward to watch some true pundit fisticuffs, though it does seem that the longer Pat Buchanan stays in the panel, the more irrelevant he gets. That makes me very happy.

Tim talked with John Kerry and I must say it was haunting to watch him. It also brought back painful memories of the '04 campaign. Specifically how, next to the message control and public image machine that was the Bush campaign, Kerry's was in damage control mode on a daily basis. In Sunday's interview, Kerry was forthright, intelligent and articulate laying out some common sense ideas about the problems in Iraq. The one that really caught my ear, was his charge of the complete failure of diplomacy by the Bush administration, even saying that it borders on "negligence". See it yourself here.

I was reminded of something that I told a few people in the heat of the '04 campaign, including someone politically connected. My thought was the perfect thing Kerry could've done was to go to Iraq himself to talk to soldiers and Iraqis. Obviouly, of the two candidates, he was far and away the only one with the real war veteran chops to pull it off. Done in the right way, with minimal press coverage, it would've really made a statement. I'm sure he must've considered it, but decided against it. The logistics, especially planning it through a Pentagon in the tight grip of Don Rumsfeld, could be a reason. Maybe he didn't want to use our soldiers as nothing more than a political backdrop like Bush was doing every chance he could. Maybe instead of not doing what the other guy was doing, he should've done it - but better.

The Leak Plot Sickens

2006-04-07T10:41:00.000-04:00

"A certain contemporary ruler, whom it is better not to name, never preaches anything except peace and good faith; and he is an enemy of both one and the other, and if he had ever honoured either of them he would have lost either his standing or his state many times over." N. Machiavelli

Of course the over simplistic main stream media greeted the latest plot turn in the Plame leak case with the screaming headlines: "Bush approved leaks of classified information". Problem is, if you read on, you realize that there's probably no concrete proof of this. We're relying on the word not only of Libby, but "Dead Eye" Dick as well. I feel safe in saying that the veracity of anything these two say is worth questioning. It's what's legally known as 'hearsay' - actually twice removed in this case. No, this investigation is not going to mortally wound the "Crawford Cowboy" unless the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has some serious aces up both sleeves. I have to admit though, how this investigation plays out over the summer leading into the midterm election in November has me quietly excited. Joe Conason has a nice opinion piece about the revelation on Salon.com and he seems to somehow know a little more than the MSM... (classified documents...?)

So, how can this play out? To me, it's looking more and more like Cheney and or Rove are going to be the ones left holding the bag. More likely Cheney on his own. The signal I'm looking for this to be the case, is if there's another big Halliburton contract that gets pushed through - way under the radar. Because if Dick's going to take one for the team, you have to know he's going to have a price. So: 1) Halliburton contract, and then 2) Dick resigns a month or two later.

Now this is where it really gets good. The administrations uber-strategy is to try to hold onto Congress in November and to position one of their own for a presidential run in '08. If Dick leaves, a certain someone will have to forego their "NFL Commissioner" fantasy for a little while. Yes, what better way than a turn as VPOTUS to launch Ms. Rice into the campaign foray. My guess: she'll wind up as the running mate of someone like McCain or Pataki. Either way, a formidable ticket. The added advantage of Rice as VP is that, assuming they can take Congress in November, it'll make the Democrats think twice about pulling the trigger on impeachment. Why ditch Bush only to deal with the much more cunning Rice and give her even more Oval Office cachet for '08?

OK, Sorry I wandered back into Machiavelli scheme-land there... Democrats, just do what's good for the country - PLEASE!!!

Gerrymander redux - Tom's visit to Hardball(?)

2006-04-06T11:49:00.000-04:00

Well, the valued, vaunted and once mighty "Fourth Estate" that we call the independent media in this country took another bullet in the knee cap last night when Tom DeLay deigned to grant Chris Matthews an exclusive post-resignation interview on Hardball. The way Matthews handled it seemed more like he was interviewing for the job of assistant bagger at Tom's grocery store. I think if ol' Tom had shown up on Access Hollywood instead that Nancy O'Dell could've done a better job. The Huffington Post has a great piece by Harry Shearer on this, plus some off-air video that shows DeLay looking amused and a little reserved in the face of Matthews' blatant boot licking.

Whether or not Matthews has a rightward slant doesn't really matter to me and isn't the core problem here. The real issue is that Matthews along with the rest of the mainstream media has a ratings and profit driven greenward slant. The very fact that instead of a reporter or news correspondent, CBS just hired the queen of infotainment to anchor their evening news, is proof enough of this. Somewhere right now, Dan Rather is contemplating slitting his wrists.

This is the kind of interview that twenty or thirty years ago either: 1) Wouldn't have happened in the first place, or 2) Would've left DeLay in serious need of a sweatband and eventually in the fetal position mumbling for his mommy. Exactly because of the ratings and money that these exclusive interviews with the likes of DeLay, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. provide, Matthews needs to put out the signal that they'll be able to tell "their side" of the story without ever having to answer any uncomfortable questions. Nevermind the fact that these people are proven liars and probable thieves. Unfortunately this game of grab-ass that the news media and politicians have gotten into in the last decade doesn't appear to be ending anytime soon.

The Wake of the Gerrymander

2006-04-05T13:39:00.000-04:00

Today I posted the following letter to this article about Tom DeLay on Salon.com:

More of the Same

These stories of the ruthless power and money grabber's ascent and fall are nothing new to Congress or in a larger sense any of society's institutions throughout history. The Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate, Abscam, Iran contra, etc., etc. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are immune. As liberals, lets not get too smug about "Duke" Cunningham and DeLay, while forgetting about James Traficant(D-Ohio) being sentenced to 8 years for similar offenses not too long ago.
I think the true happiness that should come from this for anyone on either side of the aisle, is that most of the time, the system does work. The laws and codes of ethics are there, the enforcement is there and eventually the corrupt are exposed. These "Doom and Gloom" tomes about the state of American politics only serve to fuel everyone's cynicism. This only leads to more low voter turnout.
As surely as the sun rises in the east, along with the vast majority of people who go into public service to serve the people, some will serve only to serve themselves. Wake me up when it's been 10 years without a single Congressperson or Cabinet member being convicted, indicted or at the very least being forced to resign. Then I'll start to worry.

This being said, Tom Delay did use dirty money and strong-arm tactics to wrest control of the Texas state legislature from the Democrats for the sole purpose of pushing through an unprecedented "mid-term" re-districting of the Texas U.S. House delegation in time for the 2004 election. This re-districting is widely believed to have handed the Rebublicans 3 to 5 additional seats in the House. Unless in the slim chance that a court overturns the re-districting, Texas and the House of Representatives are stuck with it for at least another 5 years.

House re-districting is one of those weird little Federalistic quirks, seemingly from a bygone era, that more and more appears to be working about as smoothly as the electoral college. Most states give control of re-districting to their respective legislatures, though some (Iowa is an example), put it in the hands of bi-partisan commissions. The bottom line: no two states do it exactly alike. The one commonality is that it's supposed to only happen every 10 years, in response to the U.S. national census.

We live in the information age. Among all that information is very detailed demographic, and yes, voting pattern data about every state, county, city, neighborhood and block. Combine this with software that is available to analyze this data and it is becoming increasingly easy to draw up voting district maps that favor either Republican or Democratic candidates. See this very informative Jeffrey Toobin article from the New Yorker for more details.

This "techno-Gerrymandering" as I'll call it, is polarizing the House, making it more difficult to unseat incumbents and leading inevitably to a more static, less effective legislative body. For this and other reasons things need to change - it's much too easy to 'game' the current system.

Mandate state bipartisan commissions to control re-districting which will occur only every ten years.
Stipulate that for any polling place, there must be at least 1 machine for every 100 eligible voters - not registered voters.
Utilize expert computer technicians and statisticians to devise a real foolproof voting machine, not the sub-standard hodgepodge that we currently have. and finally:
Eliminate the electoral college. It's illogical and gurantees that the only voters who will get to see and hear the candidates in person reside in "swing" states, unless that is, they can afford to attend a $1,000 a plate fundraising dinner in their own city.

Greats ideas, right! Well, don't expect it anytime soon. Some of these ideas require Constitutional amendments. A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the states to ratify it only after it makes it through Congress and the President. So until the people demand change...

Long Live the Gerrymander!

The First Amendment according to Michael Bloomberg

2006-03-30T11:01:00.000-05:00

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." B. Franklin (via wikiquote.com)

When I first heard the sounds bites of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's press conference regarding the 2 week suspension of Imam Umar Abdul-Jalil, I applauded the refusal to give into yet another chance to squash free speech. I'm sure Bloomberg knew that certain voices would loudly criticize him for not firing Abdul-Jalil outright. Oh so predictably, the NY Post ran a scathing editorial. I won't dignify it with any quotes here. I will say I always find it amusing when any newspaper or news organization, whose life blood is the freedoms that the first amendment guarantees, argues for limits on free speech. It's kind of like a coach arguing that the other team's air has too much oxygen, when they're competing in the same air.

In a speech last year UmarAbdul-Jalil, referred to "The Zionists of the media" and said "the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House." You'll notice these quotes aren't exactly 'hate speech', but they are critical of the President and the media .

On March, 14 Bloomberg said, "I know that this decision will not satisfy extremists on either side of the political spectrum... Some will demand he be fired and others would prefer no penalty at all." He also added, "As Americans, we should never pander to xenophobia, anti-intellectualism or convention. We must never be afraid of free speech or multiculturalism, the genesis of America's founding. And we must never use the war on terror, or political correctness, as the pretext for stifling political speech." When I heard these words, I felt proud. I wanted to go up to Mike on the 4/5 train and give him a hug. Then my mind wandered back a few years to Mayor Mike's republican National Convention, when protesters were being herded into "free speech zones" and being detained inside a chain link paddock on a sooty, motor oil covered parking lot for up to 24 hours. I've been there. It's nasty. Additionally, for the last few years the NYPD has been video taping and secretly monitoring many protests, usually posing as protestors. The list goes on. I suppose the next step for the NYPD, FBI, et. al. is instead of secretly compiling the lists of who says what and belongs to which organization, just coming out and demanding that these organizations submit lists of their members - with photos, of course. Yeah, that's a great idea. I bet the NY Post, would even come out with an editorial praising the idea and suggesting that these organizations members should be required to wear a little patch on their sleeves. You know, a cute little star or something like that.

In all these little ways, the "terrorists", or who I like to refer to as "the people who use terrorism as a weapon" are already winning. The people who use terrorism as a weapon have already had a lot of victories: the "Patriot" Act, Abu Ghraib, NSA wiretapping, Guantanamo "detainees", etc., etc. This is because the ultimate goal of terrorism is not necessarily to kill people, but to make people afraid. Because when people are afraid they will do almost anything. Actually, the "terrorists" must be happy, since for the last five years, the republican party has already been doing a great job of making everybody afraid, at least around election time. It's simple, they want their version of freedom and they're causing our government to take away our version of freedom to stop them.

Everbody fears the 'next attack' on American soil. I fear it for two reasons. I fear it, because I don't want anyone I know and love to die, though logically I know the chance of that is very slim. Literally, the chances of me winning the lottery in my lifetime are greater. What I fear more is how many more freedoms would be taken away with no public discussion, no referenda, no debate and no dissent tolerated. If you think that some of the "crazy" things I write here would never happen, just wait. Pick up "1984" and read it at bedtime. Try to convince yourself that it's only fiction.

Sleep well.