The Truth and Then Some

Thoughts - FINALLY!!! Someone states the obvious.

2006-05-31T15:08:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from Dan Froomkin's May 24th column on the Washington Post's website. Finally, someone states the obvious. The following quote by Mr. Viguerie states the theme of this entire blog:

"On Sunday, Richard A. Viguerie, one of the architects of the conservative movement, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post decrying Bush's betrayal of the conservative base and calling for conservatives to stop giving money to the Republican National Committee.

"Viguerie followed up his article with a Live Online discussion , in which he wrote: 'It is not entirely true that Bush has betrayed everyone. The 1% of his voter support that came from big business corporate America - he's been truthful to them. They have gotten the legislation, the appointments; I can't think of any issue that they have strongly supported where Bush has opposed them.'"

HALLELUAH! PRAISE BE TO REASON AND LOGIC!!!
BUT WAIT! There's more... MORE?!

From Mr. Viguerie's column in the Washington Post on May 23rd:

"As long as Democrats controlled Congress or the White House, Republicans could tell conservatives they deserved support because of what they would do, someday. Now we know what they do when they have control. Their agenda comes from Big Business, not from grass-roots conservatives."

Now, plenty of liberal types have been saying this sort of thing for a while now, but this observation, that W. panders to big bidness almost exclusively, has never been stated in the mainstream media, nor has it ever been uttered in mixed circles (read: non-liberal sources).

Even though I totally disagree with Mr. Viguerie's assessment of where the country should be heading, he hit the nail on the head on where the country has been heading for the last 5 1/2 years.

Finally, whew...

Thoughts - Immigration, Shmimmigration

2006-03-01T22:55:00.000-08:00

So you want to protect the border? You want to stop illegal immigration? Huh? Tough guy! Well guess what? I have a solution for that too.

From the lesson learned from Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto's success combating the Shining Path, legalize the illegal activities that push normal people into breaking the law!

"Legalize illegal immigration? What tha..."

It's true. Instead of all this worker visa baloney, make it simple. Close the freakin' border with a big ass wall or fence or lasers, or whatever, and allow 500,000 south of the border folks apply for and get granted entry based on our own criteria.

Right now we allow about 5,000 people to immigrate legally. If people could pay a fee and apply we could screen them for diseases, ties to terror, ticklish spots, etc., and use the fee to maintain the border, process the people, and buy those fancy green pants the border patrol wears.

Right now about 700,000 estimated folks march across the open border. Legalize, screen, and have them pay to come in. We are not going to stop them. The sweet, sweet honey of hard work for minimum wage labor is just too damn tempting. We need them and they need us. Don't stop it, legalize it.

Hernando in Peru, showed the poor people there that they were capitalists, not communists. He convinced the government to legalize the squatting and vending, and the like, and guess what? Communist rebel group, the Shining Path, went kaput. No shit. Heard of them in the last 7 or 10 years? Kaput!

The big difference here is allowing for economic immigration, rather than our normal policy of allowing only political immigration. We have the largest 1st world and 3rd world border in the world. We need to think outside the box a little.

Legalize it. I'm not kidding.

News and Readings - FINALLY! Some others have noticed it too.

2006-02-22T14:35:00.000-08:00

Our President's entire political policy playbook revolves around one axiom: money, money, who's got the money? The current, current scandal for this White House is their support for a United Arab Emirates company taking control of several ports. There is bipartisan blowback from the Congress and a flurry of reflections from various elements in the media. Finally, people are noticing the reality of our current government.

Let's be perfectly clear here, I do not believe for one second that the President's position on this Arab company is about protecting some idea of "free-markets", as some columnists have complained. Truth be told, this President wouldn't know a capitalist from a tree-hugging hippie. Imagine if a capitalist looked at our current market policies and saw deliberate attempts to keep relevant information from both parties in a transaction, as in pesticide use, carbon monoxide in meats, or the health effects of plastics, etc. Imagine if a capitalist reviewed the trade policy with China. One nation is allowed to break every trade policy/law/agreement ever written while the other party sticks to theirs and ignores the oversight, the capitalist would be horrified. Or, if a capitalist looked at our financial markets, with its "lassez-faire", or hands off, economic approach to market management on the policy side, but the vast and bloated "corporate welfare" programs on the market side, they would be aghast. There is a concept of equity in capitalism, not oversight and one-sidedness.

This system we're in, this system that the President promotes, is not capitalism, it isn't free market, it isn't promoting freedom or democracy. What it is, is finding ways to promote the specific interests of specific businesses. That is called, "special interest." It is, by definition, the bane of capitalism and it will be the downfall of our nation unless it is curtailed.

I've written extensively on this with citations and examples throughout this blog. See "President, MBA" or "Courts are the last pillar of Democracy to fall" or "The One Fact" for more detailed descriptions of our nation's true endeavors.

P.S. If you believe that this issue of the Arab company owning ports is steeped in racism, then I say that it is a little naive to think that a company can be responsible for the beliefs and actions of every single employee. Bringing an element that may act as a conduit for terrorist elements is something that should be done with forethought. We should be sure that security can not be compromised by any employees of a company with ties like this one has to a country like UAE. Let's be a little realistic here. We're not talking internment camps, we're talking about double checking the impact a whole set of new employees will have over our inter-continental shipping operations.

If other countries like China and Russia have bought these types of ports without consideration to oversight then that should be addressed too. Chinese and Russian black markets deal in horrible businesses like trade in people, both illegal immigration and slavery. Perhaps this UAE element is just a part of a larger need for oversight.

Thoughts - It's not the cartoon - stupid!

2006-02-16T14:33:00.000-08:00

Is someone going to try and tell me that the Danish cartooners were the first Westerners to draw a likeness of the Prophet Mohammed?

The whole riot/aftermath/freak out session we've been living through is clearly born from a deeper frustration. The cartoon was the catalyst. Just the way a cartoon uses hyperbole and irony to make a point, these cartoons themselves have become an ironic straw that broke the camel's back. Our mistake is focusing on the last straw and ignoring the bales of hay that were there before.

Now I'm not saying that this is a conscious effort to use the cartoons as some spark. It is simply an issue that connects Muslims around the world and gives them a righteous cause to rally around.

We need to figure out what they're generally pissed about or this whole violent reaction is going to be WAY worse when something very serious comes along.

Are they frustrated because of our closeness with Israel? Are they confused because their extreme right wing has been telling them that we're going to destroy them and we go and occupy and remake 2 Muslim countries? Are they frustrated with our heavy-handed approach to our problems in the Muslim world? Are they frustrated that our foreign policy seems to be more about our economic best interests, rather than some idealistic notions of democracy and freedom? Or what? What else?

If we don't find out we're going to put off a deeper and more emotional reaction when the next issue comes up. I predict it won't be on the funny pages.

Action! - Write your representatives!

2006-02-16T13:37:00.000-08:00

There's a lot of talk out there about "impeachment" or "investigations" regarding our current administration. Well, what about these "WAR POWERS" the president has? Now, I know our President is really not supposed to be like a king, but is it OK if he's like some superpowered warrior?

Remember, we don't investigate this President and you need an investigation before you can convene an impeachment. What a can of worms we'd be opening if we investigated this Administration. We would have to investigate:

- Taxpayer dollars for propaganda
- Rendition
- Torture
- Pre-war intelligence
- Taxpayer dollars for religious causes
- Energy policy influences
- Plame/CIA leak
- Domestic Surveillance

Here are eight suspect activities. I'll bet many readers can think of a couple more.

Since investigating any of this seems to be impossible while the Republicans control both houses of Congress, maybe we should push to have Bush's war powers rescinded? He's pretty clearly using them in very controversial ways.

If the members of Congress investigate one of the issues listed above they may be forced to impeach, a pretty major step. If they censure the President, or clip his wings some other way, then they'll really be sending him a message. But, if they end his war powers, which are certainly not meant to be indefinite, and can be easily backed up with quotes straight from the Constitution, then they're just saying that we don't buy the "long war" or "war on terror" connection with the occupation of Iraq, anymore. And, maybe, they'd be sending a message that he's abused his powers. It's not impeachment, but more like having a few toys taken out of his sandbox.

There need to be some smaller victories against Bush before the numerous investigations could begin, anyway. This would show the American people that reasonable members of Congress believe that the President has been wrong on some issues. That is a major step. Congress was Bush's rubber stamp until the 90-9 vote in the Senate against the White House's view on torture. That was just a couple of months ago.

With the election cycle about to start getting heated up Republicans are going to have their support for Bush tested. Already, in the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago, there was a story (subscription required so I won't link) about a challenge to Republican moderate Christopher Shays, of CT. His opponent is anti-war and is going to run on the idea that Shays supported the President too much. If politicians are going to have to prove their distance from Bush to win their races then Democrats need to offer them the chance to vote on issues that Bush will hate. Dems only need about 14 votes in the House and 5 votes in the Senate to swing.

As for the obvious response that goes something like, "How can you ask to keep the tools of war from our commander-in-chief during a crucial time? Are you a traitor!?" Well, the war in Iraq has no ties to terrorists. You can say all you want that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked, but there is no proof and waging a war without proof is bad. We have now proven that Saddam was not a threat to us in any sense of the word. In fact, I still haven't heard what UN sanctions he was in violation of, since we have proven that he was disarmed. The war was a war of choice. The President chose to go to war and then retains special powers after engaging the war. That's called double-dipping or self-serving or having your cake and eating it too or something like that. He can't start a war no other leader would have started and then lean on the powers of war for excusing his reaching for more power. It's like he's trying to exploit some power grab multiplier some hedgetrading program came up with. Why have we allowed this to go on this long? Are we asleep?

How about if you think of a moderate Republican and write them to RESCIND THE WAR POWERS granted to POTUS? It is a little more fun than it sounds!

www.house.gov
www.senate.gov

News and Readings - Bush goes green?

2006-02-03T10:28:00.000-08:00

Everyone is talking about the President's "might as well face it you're addicted to oil" comments from the State of the Union the other day. It's not surprising that he'd make his accomplishments in alternative energies sound greater than they are, nor is it remarkable that he doesn't really mean the things he says about getting away from "Mid East" oil. What's significant is that his people are distancing him from those comments THE VERY NEXT DAY!

Now, I'm no paid journalist, but when comments like his get so much attention, why doesn't the backpedalling get the same?

From Dan Froomkin's column (who?) on the Washington Post online:

Kevin G. Hall writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

"What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. . . .

"Asked why the president used the words 'the Middle East' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble."

H. Josef Hebert writes for the Associated Press that Bodman and Hubbard "struggled Wednesday in an attempt to explain what Bush had meant by 'replacing' Middle East oil. . . .

"On Wednesday, Hubbard and Bodman acknowledged that Persian Gulf oil may, in fact, not be replaced at all, even if overall oil imports were to drop because of the increased availability of alternative motor fuels."

Bush's penchant for contradicting policies and statements continues to DAZZLE!

Thoughts - For Bush, as much as he hates to admit it, Polls Matter

2006-02-02T20:34:00.000-08:00

President Bush's State of the Union speech was, for him a good one, but for his opponents it was even better.

Bush is in a pickle. With his approval ratings hovering around 40% he finds himself in a situation where he NEEDS to be closer to 50% by summer or his presidency may not finish its term. If Bush hits the major campaign season with sub 40% approval he won't be asked to campaign by fellow Republicans. With political landmines looming like an indictment of Rove, the Enron trial, a tougher and more critical media, his dance card just may be empty.

Come summer, if Republicans are shunning Bush's help, Democrats could push for any of the several investigations that loom over Bush's presidency. If incumbent Republicans are going to be pressured to prove how far away from the President they are in order to win their elections (especially in key blue state races) then the Dems might get the very few swing votes they need to investigate any of the following: taxpayer dollars to pay for propaganda; the intelligence failures leading to the war; the Plame/CIA agent outing; domestic surveillance; torture accountability - how high does it really go?; and/or could the government have done more to prevent 9-11 OR done more since to implement 9-11 panel suggestions. Did I miss some? Several of these issues could lead to the "I" word (impeachment, best if whispered).

If any of these investigations start BEFORE the elections in November the potential for one of the houses of Congress to fall increases dramatically. If one house of congress falls this president's last 2 years will be known as the investigation years. They'll make the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation look like a commercial, a distraction, compared to the investigations into attacks on the Constitution on which this administration has perpetrated.

The President can say that he doesn't watch the polls, but if he doesn't, the Dems could get a few swing votes and roll him right back to Crawford.

Thoughts - I wish Bush would have one. State of the Union 2006

2006-02-02T13:49:00.000-08:00

"But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil." GWB - SoTU, 2006

WHEW! Boy, am I glad we got that cleared up! Word on the street is that evil is in town for the Superbowl and that a certain someone might just be signing over our surrender to him while he's here. But Bush cleared that right up. There will be NO retreat from the world (our spaceships just won't fit all the Rocky Mountains, duh) and we will not surrender to evil.

The State of the Union is nonsense! I mean strong!

(P.S. Bush got a standing ovation for the above quote. Which state is going to talk secession first?)

Thoughts - I have one! Campaign Finance Reform

2006-02-02T09:10:00.000-08:00

I actually have a solution to our problems. An idea regarding campaign financing that would be easy to implement and might actually work.

"Yeah, right.", you say. Hear me out.

How about, now open your mind just a little, how about if every campaign contribution were anonymous? If you want to contribute you put a check in the mail with the person or party on the "memo" line and simply write on the envelope, Campaigns, State Capital, State. The checks go to a central clearing house that compiles and distributes the money at no cost to the candidate. The money gets distributed weekly to the candidate with no record of from whom the money came.

The candidate, nor his staff, can ever touch a check. The people can tell the candidate they donated but the candidate will never know for sure and therefore can not know that the money is for some specific position. Each candidate will hear, "Oh, we donated SOOOO much money to you, we're SUCH big supporters." But the candidate will simply not know the truth, thus making it hard for them to vigorously advocate on an issue due solely to money.

This type of system would be seasonal and therefore not terribly expensive to run. Existing employees from the state treasury could be assigned to the work during campaign season. We could even limit campaign season. It would be FAR less expensive than proposals to publicly fund campaigns AND if it works, we could eliminate public matching dollars AND, eventually, we could eliminate limits on personal contributions. Think about it.

This simple system could actually lead to less regulations and less problems. It will certainly lead to less "quid pro quo" type behavior since the candidate can never be sure from where his money comes!

People and lobbyists will be forced to donate to candidates due to their convictions and policy statements rather than because they've worked out a deal based on a financial transaction.

P.S. Of course, a big part of the recent scandals with DeLay, Abramoff, etc. came from payments to entities other than campaign funds, like personal charities or PACs. In some cases the candidate's family members are paid employees of the entity. These could simply have efficiency requirements, such as a 20% administration fee maximum. So, 80 cents of every single dollar must be doled out to the charitble or poltical cause for which the organization was created. The politician's family members could still get a paycheck but they'd better have some semblance of efficiency.

News and Readings - Diebold: the story that just won't get going

2006-01-27T10:24:00.000-08:00

We have known that the Diebold voting system has very serious problems. Yet the media doesn't touch the story and most people have no idea what the problems seem to be. I live in a state that uses the Diebold system in every polling place and nobody knows who Diebold is nor why they might want to. These articles I've linked are over 2 years old.

Democracy is soon going to be read as "them-all-crazy".

It all started on a dark, stormy night...on Salon.com, as far as I know.

"I got a call from one of our more brilliant computer programmers -- he's got quite a few advanced degrees -- and he called me on a weekend and he said, "I want you to go to your computer." And he walked me through it just like a support tech does -- open this panel, click this, do this, do that. And as I'm doing this it was appalling how easy it was. Once you know the steps, a 10-year-old can rig an election. In fact it's so easy that one of our activists, Jim March in California, put together a "rig-a-vote" CD. He's been going around showing it to elections officials, and now this CD has been making its way to Congress members."

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_harris/

You'll probably have to watch a commerical to view the whole article.

Also click on this link for the ORIGINAL, origanal story (apparently).

News and Readings - Col. Wilkerson

2006-01-25T10:21:00.000-08:00

From an excellent article in the Washington Post on Col. Wilkerson.

I recommend reading the whole article:

"This is not a Republican administration, not in my view. This is a radical administration."

Wilkerson calls Bush an unsophisticated leader who has been easily swayed by "messianic" neoconservatives and power-hungry, secretive schemers in the administration. In a landmark speech in October, Wilkerson said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

He is particularly appalled by U.S. treatment of enemy detainees, counting at least 100 deaths in custody during the course of the war on terrorism -- 27 of them ruled homicides. "Murder is torture," he says. "It's not torture lite."

Later:

"He's the most competent Army officer I've ever worked with," says retired Lt. Gen. James W. Crysel, one of Wilkerson's bosses at Pacific Command. "He could run a large corporation."

Retired Rear Adm. Stewart A. Ring, whom Wilkerson served for three years, is similarly effusive: "He is the most principled individual I have ever met and ever worked with. He is a remarkable guy with essentially no ego. He stands up for what he thinks is right -- not for Larry Wilkerson, but for what is right."

Thoughts - One More Straw. How's the Camel's back?

2006-01-25T09:57:00.000-08:00

White House Declines to Provide Storm Papers
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response. The New York Times, By ERIC LIPTON Published: January 25, 2006

Um, hello? Is this thing on?

I've been critical of the secrecy and big money pandering of this adminstration from its first year in office, but if this doesn't take the cake. Denying the release of documents over a storm, over the weather! What will Bush's response be? "Well I er, ah...the lurking enemy,.. could um, er, ah... use this information to ride in,... er, yes, ride in on the storm and wreak his havoc on us, when the, er ... time was right. I mean, right for him but wrong for us. He could lurk and then ride in on the storm and wreak his havoc unless we keep these documents confidenture, I mean confildenture, I mean condi- you know, secret."

The American people who support this president have a level of interest in the Constitution and in the essence of democracy that, for an interest in civility, I will not try to characterize.

Essay - Rove is the man

2006-01-20T14:25:00.000-08:00

This is a topic I’ve covered before but it's still reality. The right-wing has armed their minions with an arsenal of rhetoric to fight, and in their minds win, every political argument.

Love him or hate him Rove is extremely effective. We MUST figure out how to beat him. A lot of well-intentioned people say that he’s too much of a scumbag to emulate and that we’d be stooping to his level. They would be right but he would still win.

For whatever reason, negative political ads work. Rove attacks candidate's strengths, something that seems counter-intuitive. But even more he elicits emotion rather than reason. When the Swift Boat Vets came out against Kerry, nobody took the time to research who was right. Their side had something to say, Kerry lied, a strong emotional comment. Truth be-damned. (As if Kerry also somehow decided to give himself a medal. Let’s not re-hash)

Well-appointed arguments full of facts and figures do not work when their side is set with an arsenal of short and sweet responses: Oh, it's the liberal media; there are those liberal elites trying to tell us how to live again; you're not supporting the troops (with that outline of failed policies over the past five years).

The people on their side have political sounding responses to every issue and they get to feel like they win an argument. Since their faith in the president is not based in specifics but rather in themes they don't have to debate the specifics. A big fat, "I support the president in a time of war" suffices. The only response to that from many of us is, "You're an idiot." And we all know where that gets us.

We must change our tactics. All the facts in the world and a quiver full of Republican defectors like Clarke, Zinni, O'Neil, Wilkerson, Jeffords, and we still can't crack their faith.

We need to get in on the emotion. We need to get in on the comments and reactions that call on people's honest desires to be patriotic and to love their country again.

The true genius and concurrently the real evil of this administration is that it uses people's genuine best intentions to do the bidding of corporations and neo-con ideologues. Average people will argue that cutting taxes for the rich is good for them. They will argue that fighting a war when we've proven, beyond any doubt, that Iraq was in no way a short-term or medium-term threat is somehow preventing terrorist attacks here, right now.

If that's not genius and if that's not worth evaluating, and if necessary emulating, then we differ.

Thoughts - Utter Arrogance

2006-01-20T10:09:00.000-08:00

The remarkable element of this admin's reaction to news and commentary is their unshakable ability to address every topic from a whole new reality. And what's more unbelievable is that so many people jump onboard with nary a second thought.

This idea that the White House can just come out and say "Listen here, all of this is legal!" in response to questions of this recent information gathering ruckus, is offensive to my intelligence. And then anyone who questions it is attacked by the entire, unified right wing as traitors, or whatever their vitriol of the week may be. ENOUGH! Either you want to discuss all this or be quiet. Calling people names is not a discussion.

A Republican senator said the I word the other day (impeachment). Five former Republican heads of EPA have called for more attention on global warming or we are harming our nation. The Senate voted against the president and for a real-world definition of torture 90-9.

Republicans hear the call - there is no liberal media! For 15 years Republicans have pushed this idea down our throats and unfortunately the media has been seriously affected by it (this liberal media tag was first popular in the 60' & 70's, it isn't even original). Post 9-11 there was not one critical thought in any newsroom. Now, because of the fear of being called liberal, even the Washington Post insists on calling the Abramoff scandal a problem for both parties when the quid-pro-quo money has ONLY been shown to be that of Republicans. Both parties receive campaign money everyday, but the dirty money WAS ONLY TO REPUBLICANS!

All of you liberal media conspiracy theorist BEGONE! Whining is not becoming. We need the media to find it's critical compass again. It is lost.

Word of advice to my right-wing counterparts: the next time you stick your head out of your right-wing media safety crib and hear news that you don't like, just this once, don't immediately assume that there's some conspiracy behind it. Consider for one second that it is slightly possible that you've just learned something.

Thoughts - Situation in China is far more important than it appears

2005-12-21T13:47:00.000-08:00

The recent protests and very harsh reprisals by the Chinese police are important for many reasons, but perhaps the reason we should be most concerned with is the message the world is sending peaceful protesters everywhere. By not challenging the Chinese government the world is telling the average person, in whatever country, that it will not take notice until the situation turns into terrorism.

Terrorism is the tactic of the poor, uneducated, extremely angry, and extremely dedicated people who feel so strongly that they are being wronged in such fundamental ways that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to affect change. The Chinese have peacefully protested many, many times from well before the student protests of Tianamen Square in 1989 to the recent protests over land seizure in Dongzhou, a small coastal town. What has the Western World done to support peaceful protest in China? By turning a blind eye we are encouraging the elements of unrest in China to turn to other means. After peaceful protest proves unsuccessful there are few avenues of expression left that poor, upset people can resort to and get anyone's attention. The ultimate attention grabber is, unfortunately, terror.

Shouldn't we be looking for opportunities to criticize the People's Republic of China on their various human rights infractions? Not to mention their 50 year occupation of the pacifist nation of Tibet. How about their consistent lack of enforcement of laws regarding patent and copyright protection, environmental stewardship, labor laws, and trade laws? The only thing China does right is sell us cheap goods. Apparently that's enough to trump freedom, democracy, fair trade, terrorism, the environment, labor rights, and human rights.

We'll let China do whatever they want including kill peaceful protestors and our government is too afraid to stand up on any issue, for what? For containers full of cheap crap.

Essay from 9/16/04 from this blog: The Language of Division

2005-03-16T10:57:00.000-08:00

The politics of today are rife with misrepresentations, punditry and out and out name-calling. The politicians and some sources of news info-tainment seem to have cast aside the idea that there is a spectrum of answers and the truth always lies close to the middle and instead seem to employ some jolly group ejaculation of back-slapping, mind-numbing pedantry put-forth as a sort of unbiased reality.

So many people soak up information that agrees with their predetermined opinions and disregard anything else as “biased” or from the “liberal media.” I thought the media was supposed to be liberal. Webster’s dictionary tells us that liberal means “suitable for a free man; generous; ample; abundant.” The last of nine meanings is “licentious.” It defines the political usage of liberal as “favoring reform or progress.” How did this come to be such a bad word which can be dropped like a big “dumb bomb”? Watch how pundits will hurl “liberal” or “biased” willy-nilly and how that automatically lets everyone disregard everything within its circumference of destruction. An entire story, article, expert testimony, book by a seasoned journalist, consensus by a major percentage of the population, worldview, can be obliterated by simply calling it liberal. Facts be-damned.

So many words have lost meaning. Has the truth ever been more obscured?
The English language is truly threatened. We hear our leaders speak about the “Death Tax”, the “double taxation of dividends”, that the ever-cyclical economy has suddenly been spurred on because of last year’s tax cuts, that we should support Patriot Act which infringes upon our rights, or that the world is safer – because they said it is. Huh? Have we lost all critical thought? Is the “group-think” problem that the Senate Intelligence report recently accused the CIA of suffering from really a societal problem?

Thinking about where that wonderfully solid and reassuring bedrock of the truth has disappeared to makes me dizzy sometimes. Our Vice President was asked point blank on Meet the Press what our rationale for war in Iraq was in the week before the war began and he said, “Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim (Russert), in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.” OK, I understand. Now some months later we’ve invaded and as we all now know we found no nuclear weapons. VP Cheney is back on Meet the Press and Mr. Russert pursues the obvious topic by showing the video clip of the aforementioned quote, “MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke. VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.” The Vice President mentioned the burgeoning nuclear weapons of Iraq twenty-one times in that first interview (March 16, 2003). Twenty-one times he used the word nuclear in reference to Iraq and that specific potential threat in one interview and then 6 months later said he “misspoke” in regards to all 21 of them. What did he mean to say? If he “misspoke” that infers that he meant to say something else twenty-one times. What was it!? Are the lights dimming? (Of course we now know that there were no chemical or biological weapons either but that’s another topic, or several books.)

On our economic policy: this same administration is constantly talking about the “Death Tax.” What a horrible thing the “Death Tax” must be. You mean to tell me that our federal government is so oppressive and intrusive that it taxes people when they die? For shame! But wait. The “Death Tax” only taxes people whose estates are over $1 million. So every dollar passed on to your heirs up to a cool mill is not taxed, but after that it’s taxed like income. That doesn’t sound so wrong to me. That doesn’t sound like it affects that many people either. I’ve heard several times that it’s around the wealthiest 1% of the population.

Then we have the “double taxation of dividends.” The right-wing pundits make the “double taxation of dividends” sound worse than the town rapist. People like Larry Kudlow on CNBC’s Kudlow and Cramer chew on this topic like an NRA member chews on gun control. It is like some affront to his sheer existence. The idea that when a company pays an investor a dividend the government makes the investor pay taxes on it must’ve been a holdover from the marauding hordes of the Mongols. Imagine them pillaging, plundering and taxing dividends when the companies themselves have already paid corporate taxes. Oh my goodness! Where’s the hari-kari knife? …Hold it! I’m just thinking out loud here but I think we tax any and all profits. That is, when a transaction occurs and one side receives more than they put forth the excess is called profit and it becomes taxable income. Whew, that was close. Let’s look at cars for a minute. The parts maker sells the parts to Ford at a profit and pays taxes on the profit. Ford puts the car together and sells it to the dealer and pays taxes. The dealer sells the car to you and pays taxes and you pay a sales tax (in most states). Oh my goodness. Don’t tell Larry Kudlow. He’ll demand that we stop the quadruple taxation of automobiles.

So making dividends tax-free would mean that we are exempting them from the taxes that every other transfer of profit is subject to. If we removed taxes from dividends as the Cheneys and Kudlows of the conservative world protest we would actually be creating a “dividend tax exemption.” (If we want to take it to the other extreme we could call it an “investment subsidy” since one could buy a stock, receive the dividend at which time the price drops an amount equal to the amount of the dividend, sell the stock immediately for a loss even though the loss was actually paid as a dividend, and receive the tax advantage of realizing a taxable loss which can be used to offset real gains currently or carried forward indefinitely to use against future gains. But that’s another article.) The difference in language makes all the difference. I don’t think the average American is in favor of the “Death Tax” or the “double taxation of dividends”. But I’m thinking that they might not concern themselves with an “estate tax” (as the death tax has been called until this administration) that only taxes inheritances over $1 million or a “dividend tax exemption”. So if we put the “Death Tax” and the “double taxation of dividends” together we have a world where inheritors of mega-million dollar inheritances could receive their hard-earned birthright and invest in municipal bonds and dividend paying stocks, continue to live in the manner in which they are accustomed and never pay a penny in taxes. That world is the world without the Death Tax and the Double Taxation of Dividends. Sounds different now.

From a recent interview from the Sierra Club Magazine with UC Linguist George Lakoff:

When conservatives lost badly in 1964, they realized that they needed to flesh out the notion of conservatism. They set up think tanks and paid billions of dollars. Over 30 or 40 years they have pretty much fleshed out their concepts and gotten language for them. Nice simple language. Liberals have not done this.

So let’s do it. If liberal means all this “generous, ample and abundant” stuff it should be easy. Let’s get generous.

This administration “HATES” the Constitution. This administration has five cases this year alone challenging the Constitution in front of the Supreme Court AND they are trying to affect the granddaddy of all affronts to the Constitution by amending it with a ban on gay unions. Tag line: Apparently our Constitution isn’t good enough for this administration.

George Bush is “TOO RELIGIOUS.” This administration has cut funding for world health organizations (including THE World Health Organization) because they may want to advise women in other countries to abort unwanted pregnancies. This divides the fiscal Republicans from the Buchanan/Bush Republicans. Tag line: Bush caters to rich, born-agains and is totally out of touch with average Americans.

Dick Cheney is “TOO CYNICAL.” His dour demeanor will make this point by itself, especially when compared to Mr. Warm and Fuzzy – Sen. Edwards. We just have to start saying it at every turn the way they say Kerry flip-flops.

The people who say that we should appreciate all the good things going on in Iraq like the building of schools, roads and the like are “VICTIMS OF PROPAGANDA.” Any country would benefit from billions in aid, even ours. This is not and never has been a reason to invade a country and thinking that this is some how an ‘ends’ worth justifying is the same sort of misplaced neo-con idealism that made us think that we could shove democracy down Iraq’s throat amid the cheering open arms of the Iraqi populace. Tag line: Show me peace and democracy, not propaganda and demagoguery. Hey George, you’d better look up demagoguery before you rebut. And look up rebut too before you make an ass out of yourself, again. (That’s not what rebut means.)

Patriotism in a democracy is not reserved for those who faithfully follow the leader in dubious battle! That is literally what a dictatorship demands - unquestioning faith, especially in war. Those who think critics of the government are being un-American in a time of war need to find a way back to the USSR. Tag line: Free speech is for PATRIOTS in this country. If you don’t like it go to Red China.

Bush and Cheney got deferments and exemptions out of Viet Nam. Bush served in the “Champagne Unit” and Cheney got deferments all the way through. Kerry got 3 Purple Hearts a Bronze Star and the Silver Star. Tag line: War zeroes shouldn’t criticize war heroes.
Bush is a drunk and druggie - born-again. Tag line: Kerry never lost God. He’s been with God all his life.

Where do I stop? This crap is easy. We don’t need billions to battle their tired rhetoric but if we don’t offer up easy, catchy propaganda a large portion of this country won’t hear get to the meat of their deceptions. They simply aren’t going to listen to the myriad facts about forests, pollution, and human rights and on and on and on. Believe me. I’ve been enumerating this administration’s crimes against humanity for three and a half years now and my Republican friends and family act like they haven’t heard any of it and just don’t care. They have a faith in this president that needs shaking.

It’s not pretty but in this election it’s what’s for dinner. It appears that the answer to my earlier incredulous questions about the degradation of the dialogue of the nation is to jump in with both feet. I guess it is. This election isn’t hinging upon the interested and well read, they’ll all be voting for Kerry. We need to give our side the verbal ammunition to counter all the “Death Tax” lingo. We need the zingers to appeal to the casual news watchers. Politicians only get about 5-10 seconds of a nightly sound bite on the evening news so they need to make it count! Get venomous. The backpedaling acquiescence of the Daschles and Gephardts in this country has weakened the entire left of the political spectrum. Let’s have the Pelosis and Boxers of Congress get focused on a set of lingo and let’s get a little nasty. I’m not talking Cheney-esque f-bomb nasty but let’s not pretend to be above making the same points in a much more direct way.

We’re trying to save lives. GET DIRTY for our soldiers sake. We don’t need another thousand soldiers and another ten thousand Iraqis to die. As Kerry says, “Bring it on!” Or would you rather see your kids or nieces and nephews drafted because of unanswered, effective, divisive language.

Thoughts - Rather interesting

2005-03-15T12:17:00.000-08:00

Is it me or has nothing in that fake document from CBS been refuted? Is this an unspoken facet of this whole scandal that journalists are afraid to say?

So, the document and the testimony from the infamous segment on '60 Minutes II' regarding Bush's Guard record all contain true information, or at least unrefuted information, but people have to leave their jobs because the document that contained real info was a bogus medium. I found that the document did not even contain new information. The interesting part of the whole segment was the old guy who said that he pulled strings to get GW into the guard.

This is, as I have heard compared by friends, suspiciously similar to how the cocaine allegations surrounding Bush went away in 2000. Supposedly, Rove leaked all the true info about Bush's cocaine history to a Texas writer. He wrote a book detailing it all from an anonymous source and then the writer was shown to be an attempted murderer/convicted felon. Consequently, the messenger was attacked and the information was effectively neutralized. All someone had to do was say, "You're going to believe a convicted felon?"

The m.o. for these two events seem shockingly similar and incredibly effective. Simply wash the info and get rid of it forever by distributing it in a way that you can attack for other reasons. The document is fake and the writer was a felon but the info is out there and effectively harmless.

This disregard for information with an off-the-cuff remark like, "you're going to believe a convicted felon?" or "you can't believe a forged document" is a recurring theme in politics these days. Republicans disregard any story from the NY Times as being from the "liberal media" or any study backed by any university as being from the "liberal elite". You hear it everyday at places like Fox News. But using rhetoric when there is more to the story makes for a feeble argument.

If I were Kerry and someone told me that my criticism of the war meant that I was, "not supporting the troops", I'd say "stop hiding behind the troops". If I were one of the liberal bashing republicans and I found out that I had a set of beliefs that was completely different than the most well-informed and well-educated people in society (journalists and professors) I don't think I would go around pointing it out!

It's incredibly easy to refute rhetoric, but why didn't Kerry do it? With a president who had every measure of success going in the wrong direction at re-election time, how did his rhetoric go unanswered? Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel." I couldn't agree more.

Essay - Courts are last pillar of democracy to fall

2005-03-15T11:00:00.000-08:00

With the success of the first of several tort reform bills and a bankruptcy bill already under this admin's belt, the 3rd and final pillar of democracy is well under way to being under the control of the same corporate interests that have infected the executive and legislative branches of our government. The same interests that explain every position this government takes, including the war in Iraq.

This admin didn't invent pandering to special interests but they are clearly the most unabashed participants. (President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.).
The lengths to which this admin goes to cater to corporate donors are consistent and all-encompassing. I have asked several republicans to point out ONE policy that this admin has put forward that isn't a clear payoff to corporate interests that contribute directly to the Bush campaign or GOP. They can't name one policy. There isn't one. While the energy policy and social security reform are obvious payoffs to utilities and the financial industries, even programs like "No Child Left Behind" benefit testing and tutoring companies and in one case a publishing firm that produces the tests and has given money to Bush campaigns since his first run for governor.

With these recent tort reform and bankruptcy bills, which make it harder for individuals to sue corporations and for individuals to negotiate bankruptcy terms, the courts are fast falling under the same pressures. Contrary to Bush's "sky is falling" type rhetoric, these so called "frivolous lawsuits" haven't increased in size of settlement nor frequency in the past 10 years. When we hear all this rhetoric about "frivolous lawsuits" let's not forget that trial by jury is a very participatory event. Each case has to get past a long trial process and the best judgement of 12 jurors (read: average Americans) or have enough potential to get through this process that it illicits a settlement. Attorneys who take these cases usually only get paid if they win and face off in court against a staff of corporate lawyers. So for an individual to actually get justice a lawyer has to assess whether the case has enough merit to try or settle, a grand jury reviews the case, the judge can throw it out, and THEN you have to convince a jury of 12 in court against high paid well-practiced corporate lawyers. THEN the decision can be appealed. The process takes years, sometimes a decade or more. I don't sense frivolity.

Of course, there are perfectly reasonable responses to all of this pandering, like, "It's about time the government got off the backs of business!" or "We need the jobs and economic growth that large companies create". That of course is admitting that the activity is occuring. Fine. Those are reasonable arguments. I'm not going to convince anyone in this essay why these might be flawed reasons, so I won't try. But then let's face the reality in Iraq. With the 3 branches of government under the same, consistent pressures, my big question is - why are Americans called "conspiracy theorists" when we point out that the exact same behavior is going on regarding our foreign policy as with every other facet of our democracy? No matter what happens in Iraq the military and oil industries are going to profit (immensely). We all remember the threat Iraq's burgeoning nuclear program and WMD were made out to be and how those reasons transmorgified into whatever people are believing now. There was no proof. A small number of our allies simply took our word for it.

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that the one thing that is guaranteed in this war is profit for big military and oil. Bush and company have a consistent track record of bending over backwards to pander to corporate interests and have their deepest and most serious links to the oil and military industries (in a word: Halliburton). What's more, it seems a simple notion that if you hire experts at something you are going to have policies that revolve around the expertise of the people you hire. Isn't that obvious? These guys simply put more influence on the strategic importance of oil and the acceptability of the use of force than would any other team we could've hired.

However, I don't blame corporations. If certain industries can get their people elected well then, joke's on us. Corporations have an obligation to maximize profits and if they can spend $2mil in campaign contributions to get a $10mil tax break pork-barrelled into law then they should. It's perfectly legal and, I would imagine, sometimes encouraged by politicians (read: Tom "The Hammer" DeLay).

So then who's to blame? We are. Maybe we could share the blame with the media. Our information on all this comes from ratings-driven media corporations. But, democracy demands that we be informed and involved. Politicians have slowly become influenced by various lobbyists who pay more attention to them and their job security, both personally and monetarily. Average Americans have trouble competing with well-financed lobbyists. With this gradually increasing influence our politicians have failed us and we have failed to keep them in check. If we can recognize the problem and speak up in more succinct ways and come together to challenge the conflicting corporate interests we can still improve the state of the union. If we continue to speak in diffuse, ineffective ways we will fail.

Next essay: solutions

Letter to David Brooks after his NY Times column, 'Giving Wolfowitz his due' (I can't believe I just typed his title)

2005-03-12T18:53:00.000-08:00

You wrote:

"Let us look again at the man who's been vilified by Michael Moore and the rest of the infantile left, who's been condescended to by the people who consider themselves foreign policy grown-ups, and who has become the focus of much anti-Semitism in the world today - the center of a zillion Zionist conspiracy theories, and a hundred zillion clever-Jew-behind-the-scenes calumnies."

Dear Mr. Brooks,

I'm glad to see you're staying above the fray.

I disagree strongly with the conservatives in this country, in Israel, and in the Muslim world. Clearly you all are dragging this country into a serious situation. A situation conservatives on Fox News occasionally call the beginning of World War 3. I'm not sure that I heard any anti-semitism when people criticized the DoD for the myriad problems with our foreign policy. I heard a lot of criticisms but playing the religion card is a cheap out.

Religion has always been an excuse anyway. Even the situation in Israel has as much to do with economics and basic rights as anything else (I'm sure you're familiar with Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto). The modern intifada finds it's roots in the exodus of Jews migrating to Israel for the first time after the fall of the Iron Curtain. As explained to me by a Jewish Israeli, Palestinians were pushed out of their jobs and neighborhoods over a few year period in the early 90's which led to the current situation. Apparently, from polls I've seen over half the population of Israel is ready for peace with Palestinians and to create a Palestinian nation. What's the hold up? THE CONSERVATIVES! Can we please disagree with conservative Israelis as much as we disagree with American conservatives and not be called anti-semitic? We all disagree with conservative Muslims but us infantile, anti-Semites believe fighting them will just do more harm than good.

Even if people criticize this admin when Wolfowitz represents the US in peace talks in the Middle East, isn't that a valid point? If they perceive that we are influenced greatly by Israel why would we try to fight that battle on top of everything else? Would we send a woman to talk to Wahabbi-ists? Would we send a Pakistani-American to negotiate with India over Kashmir? Would we send a Chechen-American to discuss democracy and peace with Putin? No, no, and no we would not. Sending someone who before they hit the door is seen as a slap in the face is open to being criticized as inappropriate!
This admin seems to rejoice in stirring things in a very heavy-handed way (the war in Iraq for one) in the Middle East. As the war in Iraq raged on who was our spokeperson at the CPA? Let's see... that region thinks that we do Israel's bidding and many of us in this country think that we do the bidding of the military industry, and so who is our spokesperson? Dan Senor. He was a lobbyist for 2 different Israeli business groups and also worked for the Carlyle Group. Are you kidding? Is he chosen just to infuriate people? Is that sound foreign policy? I think you could call it "wound salting" OR these groups DO have more influence over our foreign policy than most Americans think. Take your pick.

Please don't degrade your own intellect by using this tired safety net of injecting the religion issue wherever you can. Certainly you should be able to defend this admin's actions without stooping for the lowest common denominator.

Letter to Kristoff @ NY Times

2005-03-12T16:13:00.000-08:00

Nicholas Kristoff wrote on March 12th in the NY Times titled 'I have a nightmare':

"The U.S. environmental movement is unable to win on even its very top priorities, even though it has the advantage of mostly being right. Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may be approved soon, and there's been no progress whatsoever in the U.S. on what may be the single most important issue to Earth in the long run: climate change.

"The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists. They have an awful track record, so they've lost credibility with the public. Some do great work, but others can be the left's equivalents of the neocons: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance. (Industry has also hyped risks with wildly exaggerated warnings that environmental protections will entail a terrible economic cost.) "

I responded to him because I think he missed the point a bit. Here is my reply:

It was just a dream - Environmentalism will remain

Environmentalism is something that people who wish to can participate in everyday!

We can't really affect change in politics easily, other than voting, but through each of our personal endeavors to conserve, reuse, recycle we can all feel like we're doing something for the common good, even in times like these. Environmentalism will live on quietly and effectively in millions of homes across the country (but generally in blue states ;-)).

Let's face it though, pollution is the ultimate special interest. Special interest is defined as a few profitting at the slight expense of all. It is described in economics books as a drain on capitalism and it is a drain on good governance in that taxpayers (too) often end up cleaning up for and suffering from the side effects of clearly attributable ills and spills. We know that GE for instance, dumped PCBs into rivers in NY for 50 years but if we want them to clean it up it will cost taxpayers billions. Even if we got GE to pay the inconvenience of lost shipping and fishing would cost us (have cost us) many fortunes. Why do we let companies pollute us? To borrow your reference, I have a dream that one day the courts will determine that pollution will be found unconstitutional. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are very clearly impinged upon when we are less healthy in our home environments due to easily attributable causes.

I believe there are 2 big problems with environmentalism right now. Number one is that we are not pointing out our successes very well and in that we aren't convincing people that keeping the environment healthy will keep each of us healthy. Acid rain has become much less of a problem since we instituted the credit trading of nitrous gasses. The republicans had the same old argument that acid rain was junk science and the forests were dying from natural old age. Well, many of those forests are healthier than they were in the late eighties. This is good for each of us as well as for hunting, logging, fishing etc. We need to point out the successes and also point out that the health of the environment is perfectly analogous to our own personal health. We won't die of a heart attack if we eat a couple bacon cheeseburgers, but we will take a step in that direction. We won't cause a tipping point in the environment if we buy a crew cab dually truck but we'll be powerfully and comfortably driving in the wrong direction. Our leaders need to talk about this conceptually or else we'll continue to be required to paint the worst possible picture to get our points across.

Which brings me to point number 2, which you touched on. We must agree on some specific points and use them as our focal points. If you see a bald eagle - thank an environmentalist. They were on the brink of devastation. With only about 2,000 pairs left the end of DDT use brought them back in a big way. They are all over North America again. Hawks are in city parks in NY and SF. Falcons are more common than egrets here in the SF Bay area now. But you point out that people died as a result of less DDT spraying. I disagree. While factually I'm sure you are right we never should've been spraying DDT in the first place so malaria is a completely different issue, I would argue. Malaria was there before DDT and is there still. Fixing malaria with something like DDT is like cutting off your itchy finger. Which brings me back to my point. Just the way the Republicans have their extremely effective talking points like "the liberal media", "activist judges", "support the troops", etc. They can kill a discussion on any topic they don't like with one of these mindless rhetorical bullets. We need our own ammunition. Ours don't have to be mindless but we can't go and undermine our own successes with details that aren't really integral to the point. All of us liberal-minded, well-read, concerned activists out there love to sort of compete with our body of knowledge. We love to throw out statistics or details that no one else in the group has heard to make our point. The average American isn't like that. They want something that feels good. We need to stick to the part of environmentalism that SAVES AMERICAN'S LIVES, or saves the bald eagle, or keeps our children healthy, or reduces premature death etc.

We have the potential to ride rough-shod over the junk science bandits out there trying to deny that pollution will have side-effects that are terrible for us and difficult to predict. And like the body the earth heals itself. We have made many rivers, bays, and forests healthier but we haven't done nearly enough. Don't be too discouraged and don't write us off just yet. We are still here, we just need to find our voice!

Thanks,

Thoughts - Credit where credit is due

2005-03-12T16:05:00.000-08:00

Bush, & Co. are trying to take credit for the spread of democracy in the middle east with elections among Palestinians and the recent events in Lebannon.

Both of these scenarios began when a leader died. In fact, in Lebannon there was an assassination. Does Bush want credit for an assassination? The Lebannese guy died and there were several protests and now Syria will stick with the U.N. plan to pull out and have elections. Where does Bush come in?

I don't get it. If he wants credit for these 2 situations then he gets more blood on his hands than the uncounted thousands of Iraqis he already has. So many dead Iraqis and we don't even bother to count them, but somehow this is a clarion call for the region. I would not want to have to defend that position.

Thoughts - Bush has Putin Envy

2005-02-25T19:18:00.000-08:00

Oh, the irony of Bush lecturing anyone (Putin) on the media.

It's like hanging out with a really really fat guy so you'll look a little thinner.

I can't help but think that Bush is a little jealous of Putin's stranglehold on critics and rivals. Bush has to go through all this cloak and dagger document releasing and propaganda promotion. Putin's style must seem at least more effecient. Wasn't it Cheney who once said that having a dictatorship is wrong but it sure would be nice?

I'm going to link Froomkin at the Wash Po again because he nailed it. Not sure how long these links are good for. Find the Feb. 25th column and scroll down to "Bush's defense":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/

Essay - President, MBA

2005-02-25T18:16:00.000-08:00

President, MBA

Four years ago much was made about the new CEO President. President Bush would be the first president with an MBA and his vice-president was of course the actual CEO of the defense and oil industry conglomerate Halliburton. It was surmised that these two captains of industry would usher in a new style of efficiency and effectiveness for which the liberally fatted old federal government was in dire need. Four years later it is interesting to look back and try to figure out just what type of business ethic the President and his administration brought to the White House.

It seems as though the country has been led with the same cynical, opportunist style of corporate conduct that we have come to be familiar with at the Enrons and Worldcoms of the corporate world. Efficiency and effectiveness have not been evident. In fact the federal budget has only grown with nary a word of making government more efficient. We have actually added the largest governmental agency since the New Deal and it is apparent that special interests dominate this administration. Real capitalism with its self-correcting “invisible hand” seems to slip through our fingers. We seem to have the cynical corporate loopholes and litigious strategies that are so common in the corporate world. Right now for instance, the President is stumping on the concept that limiting lawsuit settlements will reduce the cost of healthcare. FactCheck.org has refuted this. (You may remember that the Vice-President cited FactCheck.org in the vice-presidential debate.) It seems that the costs of lawsuits haven’t gone up nor has the number of settlements increased. This whole issue seems to be nothing more than a payoff to the insurance and healthcare maintenance industries. This is one very recent example of a special interest. Limiting lawsuits will chill the ability of families to prove before a jury in court that they have been wronged. Juries are made up of 12 random Americans agreeing to serve their country to hear lawsuits which attempt to redress crimes done against average people often fighting huge corporations with a staff of lawyers. Why are so many Americans on the Tort Reform bandwagon? (Great marketing, but that's another whole topic).

Throughout this administration we have seen lobbyists and ideologues run rampant through government agencies, from the Department of the Interior right up to the Department of Defense. In December the deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior resigned and we were reminded that he had been an industry lobbyist before getting the job as the 2nd in command of the agency he used to lobby. Proponents of this administration can say that it is good to have business people in charge of governmental agencies and that we should, for instance “allow mine operators more freedom in attaining environmental standards.” We should also note that across the board deference to industry is bad for the environment. An unhealthy environment creates sickness and death among all living things, including people. It has often been cited that 60,000 Americans die prematurely each year from respiratory illness due largely to burning coal. Industry creates jobs while the environment creates life. This administration clearly and proudly sides with industry.

Cynicism rears its apathetic head when corporations continue to engage in illegal activities IF they can survive the ensuing lawsuits. Corporations can postpone enforcement of laws by tying issues of questionable legality up in court. They take the profits from the activity and weigh them against: the costs of taking the issue to court; the potential lawsuits of people demanding justice; and/or the potential governmental fines from their actions somewhere down the road. The first example that pops into my head is the Ford Bronco II as outlined on Frontline. It appears that they found that profits were higher than the costs of the out of court settlements so they continued to sell these highly profitable early SUVs knowing that many people would die in rollovers. It’s a cost benefit analysis involving human lives. That sounds cynical, right? There seems to be a parallel from this administration in detainees’ rights. The rights of detainees are being tied up in court so long that they will have mistreated thousands of prisoners from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for several years before the courts decide if it is legal to throw out the Geneva convention (and our own laws on prisoner treatment) and replace it with a White House memo. That sounds like a tough case for the Bush Administration to make but they are appealing. In fact the Bush Administration had 5 cases in front of the Supreme Court in one session last year. Sounds like a high number for people who are entrusted as defenders of the Constitution.

When Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld testified to congress about Abu Ghraib there seemed to be an eerie similarity to the testimony of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling. Both are known as workaholics. Both were put forth as extremely “hands-on” type leaders. Rumsfeld starts working before 5 am and works at a standing desk. He pores over reports and documents about minutiae. Skilling is also known for having a painstaking attention to detail as CEO. Despite their reputations they both used the same excuse in their testimonies - that they didn’t know the illegal activity was going on. Skilling didn’t know that his number-one lieutenant, Andrew Fastow (sent to jail), whom he spoke with several times a day, everyday, had this elaborate scheme of fake companies holding Enron debt and company stock as their only liabilities and assets. Rumsfeld didn’t know that “detainees” around the world were being mistreated despite Red Cross reports, the presence of both the CIA and military intelligence, and now we have found out recently - FBI concerns dating back to 2002. A former armed service member and current federal employee explained to me that “in theater” a low level officer would have four meetings per day, everyday. At which time they will report to their supervisors everything that happened since the last meeting. The idea that the supervising officer is oblivious and that the actions of the guards in question went on without the knowledge of the lower and higher levels of the military officers is unrealistic. Our government is a duplicitous and seriously regulated organization. To assume that these few soldiers acted on their own just because these are the only soldiers identifiable in some pictures is naïve at best.

However, denial works if your careful enough to make sure that there is no paper trail back to you. Rumsfeld was a CEO too. In fact looking at Secretary Rumsfeld’s attached resume one must think that ignorance is something he could never claim. Pick any five years of his career and he’s more qualified to be president than Bush’s entire career. However, ignorance is how he pleads. Again, no paper trail - no proof.

Finally, there’s the question of the legality of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another of the five Supreme Court cases last year. This administration contends that U.S. and international law do not matter at this island base because it’s not on U.S. soil and it isn’t part of any country that adheres to international law. Corporations love the fake office in a foreign country scam. It helps them get around U.S. law too. I’ll even bet they have a kitschy name for it like the “foreign correspondent” or maybe the “condo conduit”. Halliburton has done business with sanctioned enemies like Iraq and Libya because they book the business through foreign offices or subsidiaries around the world. Large corporations also set up shell offices in places like the island nation of Vanuatu, now famous as the site of the most recent season of “The Survivor” TV show, and book business there so that they can keep from paying taxes. This type of activity is like a page one dodge in the book of international corporate shenanigans.

It seems the corporate style of our MBA President is evident. Capitalism is out and special interests are in. Special interests are, of course, a drain on capitalism. Don’t get them confused. When a few profit at the slight expense of everyone else we are getting away from the axioms of capitalism, such as: both parties benefit from the trade; both parties have all relevant information; or the harder and better you work the more you succeed. Now if we could just figure out why we went to war in Iraq when our top people in the executive branch of the government are mostly oil and defense experts, being advised by oil and defense experts, we’d be getting somewhere.

Thoughts - Philosophy

2005-02-24T10:22:00.000-08:00

If our Bush visits the Dark Forest but no Germans actually see him was he really there?

Pres. Bush went to Germany yesterday and never came within view of the public. Much the same as his entire political campaign, he was insulated from any potentially embarrassing activity (other than the whole opening his mouth to speak part). In the Presidential campaign just completed it seems he didn't speak to the U.S. public once. Not once! In fact, I've been watching this and I don't think he's spoken to the public live and in-person his entire presidency.

Oh, he speaks in front of people, I'm not imagining laugh tracks and mannequins, but every speaking engagement in which he participates is before a carefully screened audience, a group of coporate employees, or the military. In fact, I've seen a video from Canadian news of a commanding officer priming the troops before Bush comes out to clap loudly and often, wave the little flags everyone received and cheer as loudly as you can. Does that count as an order? Probably not, but it could be characterized (fairly) as instructions.

Does this stopover count as a visit to a country? Would you give credit to a friend if they said they had been to Italy if their only visit was a layover at the airport? What if the trip included a night at the closest hotel to the airport, the Ramada di da Vinci, or whatever? I say no credit. You have not been to Italy. If you don't meet the people, if you don't take in the sights, you ain't been there.

Bush met with Schroeder but the location was incidental.

News and Readings - Revolutionary Idea: Stop buying oil from our enemies

2004-12-18T11:32:00.000-08:00

Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute spoke to the World Affairs Council on November 4th, 2004. What a resume Amory has, what a topic, and how incredibly feasible and beneficial it all seems. If we become more self-sufficient regarding energy we can reduce our trade deficit, improve our national security (by ending support for terrorist-supporting nations), improve our own economy (by growing plants to produce ethanol, building infrastructure, etc.), and improve the environment in all ways (respiratory problems, mercury in fish, pollution in drinking water, etc.). And then there's carbon fiber, ohhhhhh, carbon fiber. To see the inspiring slideshow Amory presented (in pdf) go here.

Essay - The One Fact

2004-10-04T13:07:00.000-07:00

The one fact of the war in Iraq, that can not be denied nor argued, is that the industries closest to this administration, defense and oil, will make a lot of money. Imagining another conflict of interest this obvious is tough to do. Finding another fact in a clutch of theories surrounding this war is even harder.

This big problem that Americans seem to have regarding why a war could be a conflict of interest seems to boil down to the reality that people don't think of the defense industry as an industry, like any other. They have lobbyists, they're publically traded, and they have shareholders who are entitled to maximized profits. As long as we allow the defense industry to exist in an unchecked manner we will essentially guarantee that peace will wane as they become more successful.

Imagine for a moment if the President were say, a peanut farmer, and he decided to wage a war on world hunger. Let's also assume that there are several other peanut farmers and peanut shipping and processing leaders in this president's administration. There is a series of meetings and it is decided that famine and hunger will be addressed with a wide array of peanut-related products. All the world will be fed peanuts and peanut based foods, says the peanut farmer president. Let's say this president's name is George Washington Carver Bush. OK, let's not say that.

What would the nation's reaction be? The wheat, corn, soy, cashew, filbert farmers would rally their lobbyists and members of Congress to point out a serious conflict of interest. They would ask why the peanut industry should profit so when the rest of the farming world has so much to offer. Why then is it OK when our president and his crew have so many links to defense and oil and they take us into a war, which according to them has no end, in an unprecedented (preemptive) fashion for reasons which all end up being untrue? The only problem with this picture is that there is no peace lobby or renewable energy lobby (on par with the oil lobby) to rally their support system to point out the incredible conflicts of interest.

Sound like a stretch? Let me put it another way. In capitalism we require competition. The more competition the better and better yet when we have substitutes and complementary goods to consume. When we have choices we are always better off. In the peanut versus the farming universe theory there is a larger group of the non-peanut farmers who can pressure and bring to light the conflicts of interest that are obvious in the analogy. In this case of war and peace we have an industry that works closely with the government, employs scads of former military and political leaders and has the ear of every other, versus a bunch of papier-mache head constructing, patchouli wearing protesters who get marginalized by the media as the kooky folks they kind of appear to be. Even though the majority of these war protestors were really average Americans all we see on the news, if we see them at all are the anarchists or tinker bells. Not really a problem for the former to ignore the latter.

The theories on why we went to war have been diverse and compelling (sounding), but in the end questionable and often false. We went to war for weapons of mass destruction and burgeoning nuclear weapons capabilities. We really thought this was a fact. It was clearly stated before the war. From ‘Meet the Press’ with Tim Russert, Sunday March 16th, 2003:

Russert: What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Cheney later tried to say that he misspoke regarding the nuclear weapons but he must have misspoken 21 times in that one interview, because that’s how many times he mentioned the word ‘nuclear’ in regards to Iraq and their threat to the U.S. We know that none of this was true as weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter were trying to point out. He kept telling anyone who would listen that Saddam’s manufacturing capabilities were never very impressive and that he bought most of his WMD. Without anyone selling Saddam any WMD and with sanctions and successful inspections which had already been done it was highly doubtful that Saddam had much if anything.

Next, we went to war to make take out a madman. After the war we proved, beyond a doubt, that Generals like General Zinni were right when they said that Saddam was a contained threat. We proved that the 16 previous U.N. resolutions were working. Saddam was disarmed and therefore militarily impotent. The question is often asked by this administration whether we should’ve trusted a madman or taken action to protect ourselves. We have proven that Saddam was no threat so the question is a false one or shouldn’t pertain to him. There was nothing to protect ourselves from. Are we better off without Saddam? We already were. We have proven that he was stronger in 1992 when the first Gulf War ended then he was at any time since.

Then we went to war to address the war on terror. The 9-11 Commission of course found no ‘collaboration’ between the two. Indeed, we know Osama and Al Qaeda to be serious, religious terrorists and we know Saddam to be a cowboy boot wearing, scotch drinking, Clint Eastwood liking, non-religious maniac. Linking them seems to be like imagining that Billy Graham and Howard Stern might join forces. Of course they would be the non-violent comparison but the distance seems similar. Going forward with this assumption is a large portion of the country who seem to be content with a snyde little, "you know they were." Facts be damned.

Finally, we went to war so that we may have an island of democracy in a region of religious fervor and dictatorships. We fought the Domino Theory of the U.S.S.R. for decades. It failed. We seem to think that it’s now a good idea. Governments have proven time after time that countries don’t appreciate being occupied and force-fed things even when they are as wonderful as freedom and democracy. People end up resenting being force-fed. No real evidence for this (other than Viet Nam, N. Korea, Israel/Palestine, every former British colony) let’s just call it a hunch.

So what is left? The theories for this war are all open to argument, at least, or I think could be argued - bankrupt. The fact of this war is that throughout the turmoil the price of oil will go up and our orders for weapons will skyrocket. The defense and oil industries are doing great no matter the theories or the outcome. The goobers in the White House get to funnel our taxes straight to their people in the industries from which they came. They wrap themselves in the flag and in religion and offer an air of incredulity when questioned. They like to question your patriotism or mention their belief in God as if it should be a shield from criticism. If you question the administration’s war or anything about it you are showing a lack of support for the troops. However, the troops are clearly not what are being referenced. This administration’s bankrupt ideas of reinventing war for their friends’ profits are being criticized. Hiding behind the troops is just the rotten cherry of cowardice on top of their frosted cake of war profiteering.

OK, maybe I lost it there a little at the end, but the one fact remains!

Thoughts - If I could just win the lottery...

2004-09-17T13:27:00.000-07:00

I am not usually a 'lottery player', but I can't help it. Imagine the headlines, "Lottery winner dedicates money to defeat Bush."

Of course I wouldn't dedicate ALL the money to defeating Bush but that's not the point.

The press release I would issue: "If you have strings pulled to get into the National Guard to avoid the draft you are a DRAFT-DODGER, PERIOD. If you hide behind 'support our troops' to avoid defending your failed policies in war you are a COWARD, PERIOD. Vote for Kerry."

Keep it short and sweet so more news agencies would pick it up and also to avoid dilution. I actually think that this could get wide coverage. If you could just get it out on the news wires I'll bet several international news agencies would use it.

Bush did have strings pulled, no one denies it. Unfortunately, that's the part of 60 Minutes' report that has gotten lost. In the 'Docu-drama' that has roiled on, all the attention is on the documents alleging less important aspects of Bush's service. People aren't talking about the live interview with the guy who says he was the one pulling the strings.

If you win you can borrow this idea - free of charge (OK, I understand that there probably won't be a rush to this one, but one can dream..... hmmmm..... ahhhhh.....).

News and Readings - Froomkin at the Wash Po

2004-09-17T11:41:00.000-07:00

Read Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing at the Washington Post - online only.
It comes out mid-day and covers all the political gossip and readings around Washington.

I sent Dan an e-mail asking if Bush had given an in-person speech to the public once in his 4 years in office and he actually responded. Bush's speeches of course are always at invitation only events, military bases, corporate campuses or some such controlled environment. People are made to sign pledges of complicity before entering a Bush event and there have been numerous stories of arrests for such small protests as revealing t-shirts with anti-Bush slogans. That is - arrests - not simply removal from the venue.

From Froomkin's column on Sept. 8th:

A Refuge From the Bad News Here are a few of the tough "questions" Bush faced in his invitation-only "Ask President Bush" event in Sedalia yesterday.

"This is a comment to encourage you. We here in the heartland, I think, are responsible for being the anchor, and we know that there is a lot of trends on both coasts, but we try to stay steady, and we try to do what we feel is the right thing. And I want to tell you that I believe I can be a Christian representative and say there's a whole bunch of people praying for you. . . .
"There are those here that will know what I mean what I say that. In my prayers over the last three years, I am definitely impressed that you've been chosen for this time.

"And finally, I don't want you to worry about those weapons of mass destruction. They're going to find them. They're there."

And: "I appreciate so much the choice of your running mate. A lot was made over John Edwards' great head of hair when he decided to accept the nomination, but I would take Dick Cheney's cute little smirk over that great head of hair any day of the year."

Thoughts - Things I wish Kerry would say...

2004-09-17T10:52:00.000-07:00

1. "Given a choice between war and diplomacy, George Bush will choose war EVERYTIME!" (Bush's 'take the word of a madman or defend our nation' version makes me want to puke.) This takes Bush's saying away since people will think of Kerry's version when Bush says it.

2. "George Bush should stop using the National Guard as a hiding place for avoiding the draft. He was 'W'rong to have strings pulled back then and he's 'W'rong now to make it sound like anyone is criticizing the Guard by calling him a draft-dodger!" Bush's personal failings are not a reflection on the Guard in any way. He had strings pulled to get in, that makes him a draft-dodger. So say it!

3. "George Bush should stop hiding behind our troops for his failed policies in Iraq. We have an obligation to criticize bad policies in a time of war. For him to constantly equate critcism of his policies with lack of support for the troops is his personal cowardice. As our troops have defended this nation he was sipping champagne stateside, then and now." (His unit in the Texas ANG was known as the "Champagne Unit" and there's that great scene in F 9-11 where he's toasting his super rich "base".)

4. "War zeroes shouldn't criticize war heroes!" Edwards should say that about Bush/Cheney.

5. "This President has more problems with the Constitution than he does the English language. His admin had 5 Supreme Court challenges to the Constitution in one session this year, he wants to amend it to actually exclude Americans, and he stifles free speech everywhere he goes by making his rallies closed to anyone who doesn't agree with him. Which is, unfortunately for freedom-loving Americans, at least half the country."

6. "George Bush has dug our economy a hole, then he climbed part of the way out of it and now he is looking around for someone to pat him on the back!"

7. "I have toiled with my decisions regarding the war in Iraq. After 9-11 I, like most Americans, wanted more than anything to have justice. I supported the President in his request to have the use of force in Iraq as a weapon in his aresenal. The President used this approval hastily and carelessly. By forcing weapons inspectors out of the country too early he showed us that weapons of mass destruction were not the priority his administration told us (ad nauseum) that they were. With his rush to war with no plan to engage the Iraqi people after the combat phase ended this President has squandered our soldiers, our national resources, our world credibility and our unity at home.... America - I want my vote back! I want to withdraw my support for this President. It is not easy for anyone to admit a mistake but I made a mistake by supporting this President and I know that many Americans share my frustration. Help me get my vote back. Help me start a new direction to save our soldier's lives, Iraqi lives, and our standing in the world. Vote for me and we will work to bring an international peace-keeping force to control the cities and towns in Iraq that are peaceful so our current forces can concentrate on the areas that are the worst. As we win the peace we will bring in the peacekeepers. Our soldiers are not police and should have never been used as such."

News and Readings: HAL and Cheney

2004-09-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

Halliburton will always be an issue for Cheney because there' s so much wrong with their relationship. Because HAL and Cheney had the forethought to write in his contract upon being hired that there would be a "deferred compensation" he can draw a paycheck from HAL while in office. Because his stock options are in a blind trust Cheney can profit from HAL's success. Because HAL is the default company on much of what we require when we go to war Cheney can decide to go down the road to war and not have to steer anything in HAL's direction. People will get bogged down in trying to find his hand in getting HAL the contracts when the real issue is the actions themselves.
If this isn't the epitome of the hyper-cynical style of corporate loopholing that is so rampant and disgusting I don't know what is. Imagine devising a way to still have clear conflicts of interest without actually breaking the law. The answer is Halliburton and Cheney.

Read about nuclear weapon triggers to Libya, bribes to Nigeria, sales to Iraq and Iran, ALL ILLEGAL AND ALL UNDER CHENEY'S TENURE AT HAL.
For HAL's illegal activities and near misses see: Houston, we have a problem.

Let's talk about keeping America safe and what our priorities should be. Should we be advocating the sale of arms to our enemies? Ay me muero.

News and Readings - Terrorism isn't that complicated

2004-09-17T07:04:00.000-07:00

In the Wash Post today some light on the situation in Chechnya. People have the same desire to live and flourish all over the world.
As long as we forget that we were called terrorists by the Brits in the Revolutionary War and put "terrorists" in some subhuman category - we will not know peace.